From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 06:57:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 09:57:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Navigating Kitchen Appliance Technology Message-ID: <20160401135835.593F217FAB8@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 07:39:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> Message-ID: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. -- 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 Fri Apr 1 10:44:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:44:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401174415.GA2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:28:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I think the real difference between the two cases is how deeply one must : dig to see the wires and the switches: In the floor mat all you'd need, I : guess, is to cut through a centimeter or two of rubber to see the wires, : while the motion detector would need a microscope and an engineering degree : just to understand what you're looking at. But even with the mat, no one : can actually see the electricity move simply as a result of standing on it. I think those two are different in kind. In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Let's say there was an unlit room at the end of a long hall, so there was no way to light it without chilul Shabbos. Would it be mutar to write in such a room? Or is writing assur, regardless of the situation? If a bug is born of eggs that are large enough to be visible, but happen to be hidden within uncut meat, is the maggot kosher? In the motion detector (or the fitbit), the change is not detectible by an unaided human, regardless of the situation. People cannot see the microscopic. (And yes, I realize that claim is true by definition of the word "microscopic"). The change is outside the realm of unaided human senses in principle, not in situation. If one looks through water through a microscope and finds water bears and other micrscopic bugs in it, does that water become treif? Is all tap water or distilled water in bottles that were open too long treif because one in theory would find such things in most water? (For a moment there I thought about mayim she-lanu, but then realized this would be a much more restrictive issur than that.) : There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, : but in my experience this idea is very new. Not even ten years old perhaps. Rav Dovid Lifshitz spoke about halakhah in general ignoring the microscopic some time between Sep 1984 and Jun 1986. The permissability of killing bugs that have no piryah verivyah on Shabbos (or of eating them) is miSinai. Or at least, as old as some pre-Chazal rav pasqened the deOraisa that way, since Chazal take it for granted. The real motive for saying halakhah only applies to the sensible is to find a new explanation for an old heter to avoid saying a din deOraisa is in error, even though the old explanation (abiogensis of these insects) was shown to be empirically false. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 10:57:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> References: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160401175728.GC2751@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 02:06:19AM -0400, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote: : And here's the link to the source sheet: : http://cdn.yutorah.org/materials/Source Sheet-510279.pdf RMT's discussion is of ex rays, and really focuses on whether the developing is koseiv. (Also, mesayeia, how often is it really needed, etc...) If anything, I would read him as assuming that the invisiable change to the film is mutar. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 11:18:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:18:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401181840.GD2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:01PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : Seems similar to an automatic watch, except for there being post-Shabbos : utility to the recorded unintentional-exercise-on-Shabbos data. Also, the automatic watch, becoause it is never allowed to run down, is never actually broken to need repairs. What melakhah would be involved, even if the winding were observable? (And I think in principle it is... one can see the spring and how tight it is.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 15:54:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:54:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: I wrote: > ... But even with the mat, no one can actually see the electricity > move simply as a result of standing on it. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think those two are different in kind. > > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible hypothetically, albeit not situationally? If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I missing something here? Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." I will concede that he clearly has some wiggle room there, and he doesn't specify why he is unsure, but I never thought that the invisibility of the electrons was an issue, since their power is so evident. Could it be that the tide has turned, and more poskim are looking at the electrons? I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 2 21:33:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, but in my experience this idea is very new. .... Let's say that there is a posek who rules leniently on these devices, and he bases his ruling on this principle that tiny things can be ignored. What precedent is there? What lenient rulings existed 25 or 50 years ago, based on that same principle? Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice and didn't mean to kill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:34:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: This is many ways similar to the use of electronic water meters on shabbos. The meter has no external display that changes and all it does on Shabbos is record how much water you are using. The Charedi poskim in israel have all assumed that it is absolutely forbidden. You can see the kol korehs here: http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2012/09/using-electronic-water-meters-on-shabbos.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:41:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I realise that I was a bit terse in my original question so I would like to expand on the halachic questions. After talking to 2 expert sofrim the story is as follows. There are 2 halachic problems with black on white (traditional retzuos): 1. Since the black is just painted on, the paint peels off leaving a part (even small) of the retzua that is not black. The MB is machmir that this will pasul the retzua 2. The KSA has a chumra that the sides of the retzuos should be black as well. The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the above 2 issues. 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't peel off or crack, it stays black 2. The sides are black as well. The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the gedolim today use black on black retzuos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 07:38:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 10:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57012B00.10604@sero.name> Another advantage of black-on-black: Al pi din only the loop that holds the bayis to your arm or head has to be top-side-out. The rest of the retzuah that goes around your arm or that hangs down past the kesher can face any way. But if you have the white showing, inevitably someone will come up to you tell you to turn it around or just turn it around themselves. With black-on-black this won't happen. -- 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 Sun Apr 3 13:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 22:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> References: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> Message-ID: <57017B0A.4040206@zahav.net.il> This could be different because even if you walk on grass there is no guarantee that you're going to kill anything. Whereas in today's digital world, you walk in various cities, you're going to activate some circuits somewhere. Ben On 4/3/2016 6:33 AM, via Avodah wrote: > I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always > been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you > might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice > and didn't mean to kill. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 13:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:02:27 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> References: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Message-ID: Date: Fri 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 EDT From: Zev Sero > Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? > Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? > If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. Oros Eilim Me'adamim are explained by the Yerushalmi to mean rams hit - whilst living - so as to produce bruising, which subsequently produced the 'red' skins, on being flayed.Rashi (ad loc.) appears to concede with that explanation.Lulei d'midtofino, I would suggest the redness was due to a tannery process, much as the old Yemenite Sifrei Torah were reddish [brown].(Note: Me'adamim is most probably a brownish red, as in Poroh Adumoh.) Dovid Rubin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 10:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar Message-ID: <20160403170927.74F6617FAFA@nexus.stevens.edu> Just like most other Bar Mitzvah bochurim, my son Mordechai Zev started donning his Tefillin a while before his actual Bar Mitzvah this past Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini, as part of his preparations. Yet, unlike most others who start donning Tefillin two or three months, or more commonly, one month prior to the actual 13th birthday, my son started wearing Tefillin 31 days before his Bar Mitzvah, an opinion not explicitly found in any early halachic codex. But to understand why, some background about Double Adars is in order... To understand why, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos! Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 03:17:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy Message-ID: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> By Dr Lawrence Fishman or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: In many academic circles, previous to the excavation of Khirbet Qeiyafa and its publication, scholars denied the entire notion of a centralized Jewish polity in the late 11th-early 9th centuries BCE. Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as some of the discoveries in ancient Jerusalem have shown that this view should be rejected.... Because of the [Bible's] presentation of [the history of this period] in quasi-mythic terms, it cannot be taken literally by historians. Yet properly evaluated it can and should contribute in broad outlines to the construction of a historical picture of our period.... The early kings of Israel rose to political power beginning with a limited territorial base later supplemented by military conquest. Saul's territory was that of the tribe of Benjamin. His son, Ishbaal (this name appears on an inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa), who ruled for a very brief period..., also claimed to rule over Ephraim, Gilead, the Jezreel [Valley], and Asher. David first ruled in the territory of Judah. His capital was in Hebron in the Judean Hills for seven years until he moved it to Jerusalem. The Bible attests to his beginning as a chieftain and traces the evolution and machinations that led to his kingship.... As David gained power and expanded from his Judean base, he ruled parts of what would later be considered Israel.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 04:13:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:13:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy In-Reply-To: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> References: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57039DBE.4010907@starways.net> Aside from his name being Schiffman, and not Fishman, I have to disagree with his identifications. The Iron II remains he's talking about are not from the United Monarchy. Rather, they are from the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement. And in fact, they *match* the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement, but do not in any way match the United Monarchy, which is why he had to give the caveat that: /The elimination of these more extreme, minimalist views of the period of the United Monarchy does not give us an excuse to adopt a simplistic or fundamentalist reading of the biblical historical accounts and the archaeological evidence. Rather, it calls upon us to ask how, when taken together, the age-old historical traditions of the Jewish people can be melded with archaeological evidence from the Land of Israel and evidence from surrounding cultures in the ancient Near East. Our challenge, therefore, is not to ask whether or not biblical accounts and archaeological evidence are true or not, but rather how, when taken together, the evidence available to us can allow us to reconstruct a sense of what the society was like that produced the biblical traditions that we have received.// / This is a roundabout way of saying that the remains don't match the biblical narrative, but we can, if we try really hard, kinda see how the remains were later enlarged into the biblical fantasy. He also says: /In the monarchic period a uniformity of architectural forms throughout Judah/Israel has been discovered... Architecturally the public city gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor are strikingly similar: the walls are very thick and feature casemates where people lived or that were used for storage... The uniformity of the features of the great public buildings in these cities suggests a royal administration./ Substituting Iron II for the incorrect "monarchic period", this is understandable, since the uniform architecture was the result of local governors from the same Assyrian empire. But of course, the architecture of Solomon was on a scale far above that of the Iron II buildings. Interestingly enough, the cities where these uniform city gates were found are, each of them, in the regional capitols of areas conquered by Assyria. He leaves off Lachish, which has the same gates, and which was the Assyrian capitol of their province of Judea in the time between their conquest of all Judea other than Jerusalem and their withdrawal after they were struck down before the gates of Jerusalem. Lisa On 4/5/2016 1:17 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > By Dr Lawrence Fishman > > or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 14:57:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:57:10 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 From: Marty Bluke via Avodah ... > The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are > made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time > and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an > additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the > above 2 issues. > 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't > peel off or crack, it stays black > 2. The sides are black as well. > The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the > traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't > the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the > gedolim today use black on black retzuos This is not so simple. It might be argued that the 'optional' addition of a glossy side is not so optional. Rashi says, the outside of the retsuos need to be the 'noy' [beauty]. In the old manner of painting - and not soaking - the retsuos, this was quite simple. The painted side represented the noy. Soaking the skins does not give a pleasant finished article. Thus, i would argue, the addition of a glossy side is imperative. A point that was missed is the opinion of the Arizal, that the retsuos of shel rosh should be black on both sides. (However, from previous argument it would appear that might entail a nice finish on both sides.) The objection that this new process is a chiddush is somewhat faulty. I possess retsuos of over 200 years. It is clear that the original method of manufacture was very different 200 years ago. The entire skin was not treated. Rather, strips were cut off and then painted. This enabled the sides to be painted as well. Thus, the entire way retsuos are manufactured nowadays represents a departure from tradition. The reason, perhaps, why gedolim may be reluctant on taking on this chumrah, is that it may be misconstrued as halacha. Dovid Rubin Your soul is a part of God, part of His Infinite Essence. You are beyond limit, estimation or assessment. Ever since creation, the world has been waiting for you. Since your soul realised itself, it has been waiting for its time to perform its unique tasks of improvement. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 06:27:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:27:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakheh ess shinnav Message-ID: <57050EC8.1010702@gmail.com> I got a laugh from Larry's responses: >From http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2016/04/05/weekly-digest-news-and-essays-in-and-out-of-orthodoxy-week-of-parshas-tazria-5776/ ...Dr. Steven Bayme, who has emerged recently as the primary spokesman for PORAT...validates Biblical Criticism even when it negates parts of the Torah.... Snippet: ''Did Moses actually write that Abraham pursued his foes until 'Dan' in order to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:14), or was the place name a later editorial insert to indicate what by then had become a well-known locale? Were there two ?Yairs? who each happened to have conquered 30 villages in the Bashan 200 years apart (Deut. 3:14; Judg. 10:3-4) or was this but one incident occurring later but inserted retrospectively into the Book of Numbers as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Bashan?'' =================== larry rothenberg April 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm Steve Bayme, 3000 years from now ? ''Were there really two presidents named Bush, a father and son, who both went to war with an Iraqi dictator named Saddam Hussein? or was this but one incident occurring later but added retrospectively into American history textbooks as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Iraq?'' ==================== Naftali April 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm In the offending ''snippet'' all Dr Bayme does is raise questions. Is the mere asking of questions now considered unOrthodox? in which case, what does an Orthodox Seder look like? -------------- larry April 5, 2016 at 3:46 pm The answer depends on whether you are a chacham or a rasha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:14:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chayav Livsumei In-Reply-To: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> References: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160406191405.GB5241@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : In the words of Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter in Torah Web on "Torah : and Nevuah" I found it at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rsch_tzav.html : In his commentary to the mishnayos (end of Sanhedrin), Rambam lists what : he considers are the thirteen principles of our faith. We believe in : prophecy. It is possible for G-d to communicate with man. We also believe : that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was on a higher level than that of : any of the other prophets. What does this mean? Is Rambam grading the : prophets? If Moshe Rabbeinu gets an A+, what does Micha get? And what : grade does Chavakuk deserve? : : No, this is not a matter of grading Moshe's prophecy. What Rambam means to : say is that the only prophet who was ever given mitzvos (with a binding : force for all future generations) was Moshe Rabbeinu. His was the only : prophecy that was on the level of Torah. I didn't get this paragraph. Because: 1- As it says further down: : Moshe Rabbeinu was the only prophet who was given what we technically : refer to as "mitzvos", commandments which are binding throughout all : the future generations, because they constitute the description of G-d's : essence, which is not subject to change. None of the prophets were ever : shown "the image of God", i.e., were never given "mitzvos". They were : only given a "hora'as sha'ah", of a temporary nature only... Well, if Moshe alone was shown the tzelem E-lokim (which is necessary to receive mitzvos), isn't that grading MRAH's above Micha or Chavaquq, who did not? Now if you're going to say that's the content of the nevu'ah, not the quality of navi (pe'ula, not gavra), the pasuq itself says, "Lo qam navi od beYisrael keMosheh, asher yeda'o H' Panim el panim." (Devarim 34:10) 2- The Rambam himself says that Moshe's nevu'ah was qualitatively unique. In the 7th ikar, the Rambam describes the "peh el peh" (Bamidbar 12:8) nevu'ah of Moshe as being unique in 4 ways: a- no intermediary -- nevu'ah direct from HQBH b- he didn't need to be asleep or in a trance c- it didn't cause him to weaken and shudder (c.f. Daniel 8:8-9, 16) d- Moshe could choose when he got nevu'ah; other nevi'im received when and if Hashem chose. In the Moreh 2:35, we find: ... For I must tell you that whatever I say here of prophecy refers exclusively to the form of the prophecy of all prophets before and after Moses. But as to the prophecy of Moses I will not discuss it in this work with one single word, whether directly or indirectly, because, in my opinion, the term prophet is applied to Moses and other men homonymously. A similar distinction, I think, must be made between the miracles wrought by Moses and those wrought by other prophets, for his signs are not of the same class as the miracles of other prophets... The word "nev'uah" is only used as a homonym -- it has a different meaning when used WRT Moshe than when we call anyone else a navi / nev'uah. This goes beyond grading Moshe an A+ and some other navi an A or less. That would be saying they are at different gradations on the same scale. What Moshe did wasn't nevu'ah as all in the same sense of the word. It was a different type of perception. See also Moreh 2:45, where he lists 11 gradations of nevu'ah -- all of which in the usual sense of the word. (Moshe's being to different to even be listed as a 12th.) The Rambam was far from afraid of ranking prophecy, if not prophets. But he does make a distinction between Moshe and the other nevi'im beyond who received mitzvos and who not. As I said, I don't think that's RHS's intent either, as can bee seen in the second snippet I left in this post. I just don't know what his intent is. 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 Wed Apr 6 13:26:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:26:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:28:26AM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : http://shuihaber.com/2016/03/31/the-arba-parshiyos/ ... : Rav Sperber explains that on the 5th Shabbos, they would then go back : to where they had left off. This seems to be the literal meaning of the : mishna that says: "on the fifth Shabbos, we resume reading like usual." As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also possible. The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a : 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year : cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the : Community in Eretz Yisroel. Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from EY than among Sepharadim. The question is when did Ashkenaz itself switch. It must have been centuries before the time in discussion in any case. Machzor Vitri (R' Simchah miVitrie -- a talmid of Rashi and the Ri's grandfather) discusss leiniing Bereishis on the 2nd day of Sheini Atzeres, the terms for Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis, and even the reshus for each. But it would be ironic if Ashkenaz became the bastion of Babylonian lening, spreading it to EY. I guess it's true: there is no one so vehement as the newly converted. : Lastly, there is an old minhag to say Yotzros and Krovos during the : Shabbos morning Tefilla... : This minhag became popular amongst the Chassidim... But I think most loyally maintained bvy Yekkes, due to the aforementioned ancient Ashkenazi attitude toward piut in general. : The Rema comments that the R'i, Rashba and the Tur all hold that there : is no issue with interrupting your regular tefilla for this, but if you : do not say the Yotzros it is still fine... (Note: change fn 10 to "OC 68:1".) The Rama takes it for granted that the minyan is saying them, "vekhein nohagin bekhol hameqomos le'amram". So even though he hold "vehameiqil ve'eino omeram lo hifsid" -- as long as you're with the tzibbur and not even learning during the piyut -- I am not sure he is actually advocating for skipping it. Ad RSH put it "it is still fine". I just wanted to point out that he would NOT permit what I myself do -- use the time to learn. "Ein le'adam lifrosh atzmo meihatzibur". He repeated this in 90:10, where he advocates saying the piyutim with the tzibbur. "Velo yifrosh min hatzibur afilu la'asoq bedivrei Torah". : The Minhag of the Chasam Sofer was not to recite the piyutim during : davening, rather he would sing them during the Shabbos or YomTov : seudah. The Mesora is that the Chasam Sofer learnt this from his rebbe : the Baal Hafla'ah who learnt it form the Mezritcher Maggid who learnt : it from the Baal Shem Tov... Whatever happened to the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah"? 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 Apr 6 13:58:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406205847.GE5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger responded: : > I think those two are different in kind. : : > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use : > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) : > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. : : Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible : hypothetically, albeit not situationally? We are comparing two ways of making the door open. If making the door open is not a halachic problem, then there is no contrast. I am saying that nothing physical happens to an electric eye or UV sensor to cause the motor to go on. However, with the mat, one is moving two metal plates together (or a conductive tape against a plate). Cut away the rubber, and you would see the circuit close. There is a visible cause and a visible effect. Even if part of the causality is only explainable by appeal to the quantum scale. (BTW, atoms are mostly vacuum. It's only quantum scale repulsion of electrons that fully explains why hitting a ball with a bat changes the course of the ball; why things don't just go through eachother.) ... : If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For : it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the : electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I : missing something here? It wouldn't be the motion of the electronc, even if they were macroscopic. You might as well prohibit flushing toilets and rolling marbles down a ramp, if one inherently prohibites the giving elecrons a chance to use their potential energy (voltage). All of the theories about why electricity is assur depend on the visible effects of the cercuit, or the visible making of a circuit, not the moving of current itself. (Except of course RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan even without a Sanhedrin.) : Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which : opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei. Also on that list: sparking, unless the motor's spin rate is based on the frequency of the AC current coming in. But PRDNL wouldn't help with a deOraisa. (RYE Spektor and ROY permit it for a derabbanan, the MB only for a double-derabbanan.) Water meters were mentioned. I posted about PRDNL anhd water meters in 2012 . Click on the subject line and see the thread. : Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe : Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone : on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the : electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur : d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." ... That's OC 4:84. Who doesn't talk about the invisible, but about electric power. "Vreo'in zeh bechush", although he means you can hear it from the loudspeaker. I do not see RMF saying that power that goes into results that in principle you cannot sense would be assur. : I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does : try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can : be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has : something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both : teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". : It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely : speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be : meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should : also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. But another part of the permissibility of speaking in the presence of someone with a hearing aid is that at times even with the hearing aid, the user doesn't hear anything, thus ruling out pesiq reishei, reducing it to davar she'ein miskavein. The problem I have with your "it sounds to me" is that it begs the question: Can there be havarah that can't be sensed? (Including: Can there be havarah if something burns below yad soledes bo?) Tir'u baTov! -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 Wed Apr 6 14:50:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between > Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the > other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also > possible. It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there are two. > The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read whichever sidra is next on the roster, but we are not back on track because we still have some of the four parshiyos coming up. Only on the shabbos after Hachodesh are we "back on track", at least until Pesach comes. >> This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a >> 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year >> cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the >> Community in Eretz Yisroel. This explanation is missing a major piece of the puzzle. It's not that the Baalei Tosfos had such enormous influence on Bnei EY that they induced them to change their minhag. They never had such an influence. Rather, the crusaders completely wiped out the Yishuv of EY. By the end of the 12th century there were essentially no Jews left; the only place minhag EY survived was at the EY shul in Cairo. Slowly EY began to be repopulated, mostly by Ashkenazi olim. When the Ramban arrived there was a small community in Akko (which was under Xian rule) but not even a minyan of Jews living in Y'm. Thus the new EY community that developed, and that the Sefardim found there when they came after 1492, was composed of European olim with European minhagim, including reading the Torah on the Bavli cycle. > Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of > the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that > Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from > EY than among Sepharadim. How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. -- 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 Apr 6 15:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:10:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read : whichever sidra is next on the roster... Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? ... :> Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of :> the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that :> Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from :> EY than among Sepharadim. : How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue : for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. Then why did Ashk start out triennial? Admittedly, it changed by Rashi's day, so "start out" was quite short, but still, there are records of debate about it. Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the siyum every third Shavuos.) Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were shorter. There are better indicators, but this period in Jewish History is more RRW's thing than mine. Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and finally Egypt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 15:22:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:22:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... > :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. > > : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we > : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read > : whichever sidra is next on the roster... > > Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" > for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track > but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. >> How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue >> for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. > Then why did Ashk start out triennial? I've never heard that it did. > Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. How so? > (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the > siyum every third Shavuos.) Sorry, I don't recall that. > Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that > died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were > shorter. Is there evidence for that, or is it just speculation? BTW Targum survived in some communities for some special readings, even after it stopped being used for the whole Torah. So it's possible that when and where Akdamos were written it was still done on Shavuos even if it wasn't the whole year. > Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and > finally Egypt. Again, is this established, or speculation derived from precisely the proposition that you are trying to derive from it? BTW I just came across another survival of ancient minhag EY: The kiddush Rosh Chodesh that is well-attested in EY in the first millennium (e.g. in Mas' Sofrim and in the list of differences between EY and Bavel) survived into the 13th century in the Minhag-EY shul in Fostat, but only on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Eventually minhag EY died out in Egypt too, but the idea of having a special seder Rosh Chodesh Nissan lived on, and is still practised by Egyptian Jews today, under the name "Seder al-Tawhid" (Seder Hayyichud). -- 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 Apr 6 15:29:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:29:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between >> Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the >> other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also >> possible. >> > > It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. > However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. > There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there > are two. There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and Hahodesh. There is also a mnemonic for the dates of the hafsakot according on the date of 1 Adar, "Zivdu: Zyah Bu Dad Ubyu" but I've never found it very useful because the mnemonic is such a tongue-twister that I can never remember it and end up working out the dates from scratch and reverse engineering the mnemonic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 17:59:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:22:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. : The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is : irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. Again, I am not insisting this implication is muchrach, but look at the mishnah (Megillah 3:4): RC Adar that falls out on Shabbos, we read P Sheqalim... On the 2nd, Zakhor On the 3rd, Parah Adumah On the 4th, "HaChodesh haZeh Lakhem" On the 5th, we return to the sequence... The Ran (quoted by Tosafos YT) only discussed "basheini" saying it's the 2nd week after Sheqalim or after the break described in the ellipses at the end of the first line of my "translation". :> Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. : How so? The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning of speach..." Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying he is prefacing. In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn bera H'..." 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 Wed Apr 6 18:10:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:10:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5705B370.3080401@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 08:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning > of speach..." > > Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into > referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY > beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying > he is prefacing. > > In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning > of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn > bera H'..." Why not a preface to the day's laining? -- 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 Apr 6 19:33:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:33:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger's posts are very well thought-out. I've reached the limits of my knowledge on this topic. I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? RMB wrote: > ... RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we > all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan > even without a Sanhedrin. Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we *know* are working, but *appear* to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really can't complain. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 21:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. > The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between > 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd > and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and > Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and > Hahodesh. Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. I don't see how a siman helps with that. [Email #2. -mi] On 04/06/2016 09:10 PM, Zev Sero wrote [about Akdamus]: > Why not a preface to the day's laining? Note that Tosfos Megillah 24a d"h Uvenavi says that in their day they still did targum of the haftaros on Pesach and Shavuos, and also that of matan torah (i.e. the leining of the first day of Shavuos), but not that of any other leining or haftarah (d"h Lo Shanu on the previous page). Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. -- 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 Apr 6 23:04:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:04:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. >> The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between >> 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd >> and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and >> Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and >> Hahodesh. >> > > Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. > I don't see how a siman helps with that. I checked RSZ's source, which turns out to be Yerushalmi Megilla 3:5. The context of the siman is a mahloket in the Yerushalmi whether Parah is defined as the Shabbat before Hahodesh or the Shabbat after Purim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 03:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:18:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407101838.GB3151@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:10:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who : wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he : was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since : by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. ... in parallel to the already existing Aqdamos. So it could be a 2nd hand reflection of the cycle in use when Aqdamus was written, rather than a dispoof of connection to the cycle. (BTW, the "-ta" ending is traditionally ascribed to the idea that when a Jew stops learning Torah (tav) he must immediately begin again (alef). A homily that does fit a siyum on Devarim and starting Bereishis far better than leining inyana deyoma. Of course, who knows if that was really the author's intent. It is a "cute" understanding of the piut and worth sharing either way.) And Yetziv Pisgam does not refer to pausing to give a preface before starting The Word. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:55:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, > where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his > conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads > him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, > I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to > Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. > And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches > Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need > to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we know are > working, but appear to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are > issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really > can't complain. > Akiva Miller Pretty much what R' Asher Weiss says un putting electricity in the maakeh bpatish category defined as things that chazal didn't fit in other categories. However I think he would say gdolei haposkim will come to a consensus, not "each for himself" on major categories. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 08:40:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Kitniyot, paper goods Message-ID: <20160407154022.7A2F717FBF0@nexus.stevens.edu> Can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. On Pesach, can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover? A. Paper plates, paper towels and napkins generally contain starch. Some forms of raw starch are kitniyot, such as corn starch, while other forms of starch, such as wheat starch, are actual chametz. In the U.S, it can safely be assumed that starch used in manufacturing is kitniyot, most probably corn-based. Though one should not intentionally add kitniyot to food, with respect to paper goods this is not a concern because the starch that is part and parcel of the paper itself is nifsal mei'achila (inedible). (If paper goods contain wheat starch, the fact that it is nifsal mei'achila may not suffice to permit their use, see Magen Avrohom 442:4). Based on the above, in the US, one may use paper plates, paper towels and napkins even if not certified for Passover. For a full list of non-food items that can be used on Passover without certification please go to https://oukosher.org/passover/guidelines/non-food-items/non-food-items/. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 09:53:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160407165337.GA21819@aishdas.org> RAM entered the discussion with: > There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, > but in my experience this idea is very new. And appears to be trying to leave with: > I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great > example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, > when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? (I agree that we lack clarity here, but I am not sure why RAM thinks it's a problem with the language rather than the ideas themselves.) Well, except that this notion that halakhah doesn't concern itself with phenomenona that people cannot experience unaided (in any situation) isn't limited to a discussion of electricity or even of Shabbos. The idea that canges internal to a chip in a fitbit wouldn't be an issue for hilkhos Shabbos (until there is some macroscopic effect of those changes) is by parallel to discussions of the permissibility of drinking water that contains creatures about the same size as a trace (thinkg "wire") on a chip. 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 Thu Apr 7 12:25:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:25:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy Message-ID: <20160407192530.8B8E617FAC2@nexus.stevens.edu> Last Shabbos we read Parshas Shmini, best known for discussing and specifying the requirements for discerning which animals are considered kosher. But what is a buffalo considered? Can we partake of a nice juicy buffalo burger? Although the Shulchan Aruch himself rules that a buffalo is considered a kosher beheimah, it is quite certain that he was not referring to our American buffalo, which, actually a bison, was unknown at the time... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:14:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:14:33 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A study of Dayan Usher Weiss on LED lights in his Tshuvos will reveal his Shita that such things are likely to be considered an issur under the rubric of Makeh B'patish. I didn't merit understanding all the halachic logic but I feel he would apply it here as well. We can be halachically exploitative and also include the view that your walking on Shabbos should not be the same as Chol! I'm sure many of us have seen the strange Shabbos walk avoiding large steps. Walking with a Fitbit may possibly be construed as transgressing this possuk in Nach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 07:30:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:30:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Matzah before Passover Message-ID: <20160408143111.6480417FAAD@nexus.stevens.edu> I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan... OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Am I permitted to eat matzah which is labeled "Not Kosher for Passover"? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Matzos which are labeled "Not Kosher for Passover" are made without a full-time mashgiach present during production, and the water used in kneading the dough is not mayim she'lanu (specially drawn water). Though we would not eat these matzahs on Pesach, it is not certain that the matzahs are absolute chametz. Mishnah Berurah 471:12 writes that the Rabbinic prohibition to not eat matzah on Erev Pesach, applies even to matzah that has folds or bubbles, since such matzahs are of questionable status, and they are not absolute chametz. This would imply that "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs may not be eaten Erev Pesach, since these matzahs are also of questionable status. Nonetheless, Rav Schachter, Shlita, maintains that the definition of matzah with respect to the minhag (practiced by some) not to eat matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh is not the same as the definition of matzah relative to Erev Pesach. Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 214:1) writes that a minhag is a form of a vow. Vows are interpreted in accordance with common usage of language. Since most people consider "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs to be chametz, they may be consumed until Erev Pesach. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] Forward Unsubscribe [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 09:01:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:01:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eshbaal Message-ID: <20160408160147.GA26885@aishdas.org> >From http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/first-person-banning-baal or http://j.mp/1VdtbxE :-)BBii! -Micha Biblical Archaeology Society First Person: Banning Ba'al As published in the March/April 2016 Biblical Archaeology Review Hershel Shanks -- 04/04/2016 Was the proper name Eshbaal -- man of Ba'al -- banned in Judah after King David's time? A recent analysis suggests that it was. Ba'al, meaning lord or master, was a common divine appellative in Canaan and neighboring areas during Biblical periods, most frequently referring to the storm god. Very recently an inscription was uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa -- a site already famous for a late 11th-10th-century B.C.E. inscription -- about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. According to excavator Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, the site is probably an imposing fortress erected by King David facing the Philistines. ... The name 'Ishba'al or, more commonly, Eshbaal, is well known from the Bible. It means "man of Ba'al." (The name Beda` appears for the first time in this inscription.) ... In the Bible various Ba'al names appear of people who lived in King David's time or earlier (Jerubbaal [Judges 6:32], Meribbaal [1 Chronicles 9:40], etc.). But the Bible mentions no Ba'al names after this -- neither Ba'al nor Eshbaal. Ba'al names simply do not appear in the Bible after David's time. The archaeological situation is a bit, but not completely, different. We have more than a thousand seals and seal impressions (bullae) and hundreds of inscriptions from Israel and Judah from the post-David period (ninth-sixth centuries B.C.E.). The name Eshbaal is not to be found among these names. The situation with the name Ba'al is slightly different; it does occasionally appear in Israel -- and of course in Philistia, Ammon and Phoenicia. But not in Judah! It seems that Ba'al and Eshbaal were banned in David's kingdom. One reason may have been that, at least officially, Judah was monotheistic. Thus, names constructed with a form of a foreign deity's name -- especially of Ba'al, who was Yahweh's rival -- would not have been considered kosher. In addition, David's predecessor and rival, King Saul, fathered a son named Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33 [2]) who reigned for two years (2 Samuel 2:10) -- another good reason to bar the name in David's kingdom. [2] "Ishbosheth" in the account in 2 Samuel 2-4. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 08:52:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:52:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> References: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160411155203.GA3225@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:36:04PM IDT, R Ben Waxman posted to Areivim: : https://twitter.com/benwaxman/status/718898333075566592 : Translation of something Rav Sharki said in an article on dati : students attending university: : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? This has to be a mistranslation. After all, being unable to find an answer is FAR short of proving no answer exists. Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and tragedy. 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil 3. God exists First proposal. Therefore 4. There is no evil But observation will tell you: 5. There is evil We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. So really only 3 & 5 are plausible open to denial: either there is no G-d, or there is no evil. As I posted there: Theists consistently reject #2 "If an OOO Being exists, there would be no evil." That is given short shrift, and therefore the real argument is really swept under the rug. A world in which the OOO Being provides all the good might be worse than a world in which the OOO Being wants to provide others the opportunity to be provides of good themselves. The assumption is that a world of passive recipients is better (more good) than a world of contributors. This argument is kind of like saying that: 1- A parent has the ability to see more obvious sources of pain in advance and help a child avoid them. 2- A good parent would try to do so. Yet 3- Good parents allow their toddlers to fall on their bums when learning to walk -- despite seeing it coming. Therefore, 4- there are no good parents. The answer is -- #2 is false. There are better goods than preventing all pain. But notice I didn't answer the question of theodicy, tzadiq vera lo. Arguably the question is unanswerable to humans. (Admittedly there are O Jews who deny #5, and assert that tragedy is an illusion. My argument is more that the best universe is one that has the lesser evil, that a paradox in the human condition makes a world with no tragedy itself imperfect. The question of the reality of evil is a tangent worth exploring, but not to go even further afield than my point.) R' Sherky is NOT possibly arguing we should therefore accept Prof Haslanger's argument, though. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: While RUS's name appears around the web both as "Sharky" and "Sherky", I'm going with the evidence of . -- 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 Mon Apr 11 16:21:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:21:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag Message-ID: I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, no chrain on fish. I wonder if any other groups have such a minhag , a nd what might be the origin of such a custom. 2nd question. In re nuts on pesach , It seems all the major agencies cite that any additive free whole nuts are ok without special cert. ( pecans excepted) . However the detroit vaad recommends assuring the nuts are paked in a hametz free facility. This is NOT noted by OU, CRChic, etc. i wonder if this would be an economic hardship that the non haredim lidvar hashem would hold to. Interestingly the costco kirkland nuts remark that they maybe packed in a place w wheat, soy ,etc... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 18:59:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:59:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat > ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, > no chrain on fish Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 08:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> References: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> Message-ID: <570D11D4.8000908@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 09:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: >> I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat >> ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, >> no chrain on fish http://chabadlibrary.org/books/chasidim/otzar/4/14/39.htm Note that although this does include all the ingredients of charoses, it does not include eggs, or the greens that might be used for karpas, contrary to the sources I will cite later. > Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first > day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first > day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, > so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. > > Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems > to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be > "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. The minhag not to eat maror before the seder goes back at least to the Rashba and Rashi. Although the Bet Yosef dismisses it, the Rama cites it, and it appears to be common in many communities, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi. The BY's question is answered by many, saying that even in the case of matzah "teavon" in this context means novelty, and the pleasure that comes from that, not an actual desire for the taste of the food, so it doesn't matter whether the food tastes good or bad, or isn't even tasted at all. See under "shulchan orech", that the Ashkenazi custom is not to eat even whole eggs at the first seder, but rather to eat only beaten eggs, which is probably the origin of the common minhag to eat the egg mashed up in salt-water as a "soup". See also who says it's the common minhag of sefardim not to eat lettuce or greens, beyond the requirements, for a day before each seder, including at the first seder. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 14:28:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:28:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness Message-ID: Cannot taste the bitterness 1. "Filled me with bitter herbs - Hisbiaani bMrorim - hirvani Laana - sated of bitter" - Midrash Eichah in Psicha and on the Passuk - compares the Exodus of Mitzrayim to the Exile after the First Temple was destroyed. 2. Apparently the bitter taste of these vegetables was familiar to all. 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after kiddush. 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush. A simple person might prefer to start off with Maror ASAP. Someone may have stolen the Karpas. Those who pursue radishes for Karpas may prefer it as a secondary variety of Maror, reminding us not to consider this the REAL maror, which can only be eaten with the Matzah, in advance of next year's Korban Pesach. 5. What if one ate the Karpas leaning - bhesseiba? That would explain the child's train of thought - you eat bitter herbs - for slavery and you ate them leaning? Sorry - I have no source yet for that. When Matza was just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed Thaddeus of Rome. 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth, just call in Rabbi Vaya to check it, or alternatively? take it off the menu, finding some other food for appetizer. 7. skip the appetizer. Renal patients who cannot drink begin with Kiddush on Matzah, which some would much prefer. The Magid would be after the meal had initialized. 8. Lately I checked two heads of Romaine lettuce. When I sample some leaves, no bitterness was to be found, just a very mild sweetness. in fact the Pri Chadash in back of SA Orach Chaim - openly advocates that totally sweet lettuce - sans bitterness - is perfectly acceptable! To recap, the Mishnah lists five grain varieties for Matzah, which are exclusive. It then lists 5 varieties for Maror, but even the Amoraim debated what to buy. Rav Huna Bar abba ? sought Maror - the bitterest herb eponymous with bitterness, as the Mehadrin would seek. Rava chided him - Chas Rachmana Alan - Hashem had consideration for us and prefers Chassa (pun - means lettuce) which has some sweetness. 9. I take this metaphorically - Hashem is always keeping the balance of sweetness and bittterness in the fortunes of the Jerwish People. Fixating on bitterness can lead to bad results. 10. The Pri Chadash quotes the famous Aruch (of Rome, a century before Rashi, disciple perhaps of Rabeinu Chananeil) on Charchavina, one of the 5 species of the Mishna, defined generically - "one sort of bitter herbs". 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 sons taste it ? 12. Is Maror a specific species exact type of plant? Ateres Tzvi (margin of OC 473) and Elya Rabba combine to say there is a family called Lettuga - lettuces. That helps immensely - as the leading species candidate is "bitter lettuce" - Hebrew Chassa Matzpen - has spine of bumps on its leaf, and is a glorified dandelion! My neighbor the botanist has no idea where to find it but he offered me some fresh horseradish leaves. Horseradish relates to the cabbage family - including endives, which get some mention. 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection. My father's tears would flow as he ground his horseradish every year. The Chochmas Shlomo, Rav Shlomo Kluger, seems to have the high road of directness here. Rambamists can see that the examples of foods barely edible - which barely are considered normal foods - in Shvisas Asor - are these very vegetables - Chizrin. 15. The famous Rav Chaim Berlin, son of the Netziv, apparently got medical advice not to eat horseradish, and sought grounds to absolve his Neder. He sent a letter to his father the Netziv whether he should continue to eat Khrein. Netziv - as predictable - answers - use Sallatin - lettuce - like the common practice, and also the zayis olive size is very small. [Meromei Sadeh]. 16. In OC 473 the Lvush and Elya Rabba - praise to the publishers of the new Levush set - discuss Maror, and Ateres Tzvi explains that any lettuce is fine, as long as it is bitter. 17. Biologically chickory and lettuce are very close. If even the cabbages - the latin name braccidae are also included in Maror, then perhaps both kale in its beauty and varieties are included, even perhaps arugula. 18. Perhaps I will make the bracha on kale, then arugula, then Romaine, then horseradish for mimetic imitation of my father. 19. For me - no more sweet or tasteless Maror, I cannot make it bitter anymore. 20. See also Kovetz - in back of the old Rambams. See Aruch al Hashas who has in kilayim and in other places diagrams and exact species names for all the candidates mentioned in the mishnayos. There is an alphabetical index in the last volume. 21. Identification of Chizrin with Chazeres is no sure thing. Professor Felix has a sefer called haChaklaut..... which explains from a farmer's point of view what it means that a crop thrives in the shade. 22. This is actually a call for help! I imagine most people deal with these questions annually. Please - any opinion or information will be helpful to me. 23. David Wacholder 5:15 PM (2 minutes ago) Email: dwacholder at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Wed Apr 13 09:07:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:07:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum Message-ID: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: https://soundcloud.com/jroot-radio/yosef-wikler-apr-07?in=jroot-radio/sets/kashrus-on-the-air. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me or click here to subscribe kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 13 13:16:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum In-Reply-To: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds > this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in > 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered > Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's > largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... This is last years info. The link is to an article from 5775. The OU & Star-K are still certifying quinoa, as they did last year. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 14 18:51:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:51:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos Message-ID: Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this (even opening with the remark that this halacha is "pashut - simple"), yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. I will concede that this was a literally parenthetical (or rather, bracketed) comment, and perhaps we should not darshen too much into it. But on the other hand, he had the option of saying that a choleh may *eat* kitnyos himself, and insted he took the extra step of saying that *we* may do the cooking. And yet, the Chofetz Chaim omitted the warning which is so ubiquitous today, that the cooking should be done in separate pots, not to be eaten from by healthy Ashkenazim. So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. (Plenty of poskim talk about ta'aroves kitniyos, but that's usually an after-the-fact situation, and I don't want to get bogged down on whether or not the situations are similar. I'd rather hear about those who explicitly address the keilim issue.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 07:15:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:15:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160415141538.GA30368@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:51:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that : Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid : ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. RMF explains that one may drink whisky (51 weeks a year) aged in wine casks because we do not prohibit ta'am stam yeinam. The core of his argument is that stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6 (YD 134:5). One can taste the wine in a mixture of one part wine to 6 parts water. (IM YD 1:62) Well, qitniyos is batel berov. (Rama OC 453:1, see MB ad loc that explains the Rama must mean where the qitniyos is a mi'ut, and is not permitting every mixture.) Bringing me to the need to switch the formula for KLP Coca Cola. Corn is a late edition to qitniyos, as it is a New World plant. Corn syrup adds the issue of mei qitniyos. A 12 oz can of coke has 140 Cal (Pepsi: 150). High fructose corn syrup is 4 Cal/gm, so that 12 fluid oz can cannot contain more than 35 gm = 1-1/4 oz (weight) mei qitniyos. Less than 10%, never mind rov. So, the problem with standard American Coke is mei iffy-qitniyos that is batul. And yet it's avoided on Pesach? (According to 80% of tasters prefer Mexican Coke, which -- like KLP Coke -- only differs by the use of sugar rather than HFCS. So I hope no one from Coke is actually reading this post.) :-)BBii! -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 Fri Apr 15 07:49:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness Message-ID: 1. R' Micha pointed out the Yerushalmi discussion whether Chassa metuka sweet lettuce is kosher. That shows that the name - Chazeret Chasa - synonymous with Marror is sufficient, and bitter taste is not necessary. 2. R' Chaim Kanievsky points out that the Chazon Ish - Orach Chaim page 398 in Otzar Hachochma - strongly rejects that conclusion from the Yerushalmi! (hat tip to R' Kalman Gutman!) 3. After 6 lines pointing out how vital the taste of Maror is, CI shows the absurds of such a conclusion - if so you can leave the Maror in Chazeres, and need not taste it at all - swallow in a sieve - and since any vegetable which is bitter is sufficient to be Yotzei, we see that the bitter taste is the governing principle. 4. 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond edible. 6. Thus we should pursue bitter lettuce. The paradox is that the lettuce industry spends all its resources to prevent "bolting" - becoming bitter. The economy runs on sweet lettuce, as CI also pointed out. Pesach is in spring, so it is not so simple. 7. That would be the practical problem the Yerushalmi is attacking. You do not need the strongest bitterness, mild transitional bitterness sufficient. 8. The super-kosher bug-free industry now markets "greenhouse" kale and arugula, which are mildly bitter. I purchased both last night. Usually they are used by French chefs. This is a classic Chazon Ish. He wanted Torah based lifestyle, and Mehadrin bitterness in Maror fits right in with his theme. Build on the sound simple meaning of the Torah. -- David Wacholder Email: dwacholder at gmail.com dwacholder at optonline.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:59:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:59:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos Message-ID: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Or if you want, I am equally reviving the threads "Minhag Avos and Minhag haMakom" (see the group of threads at ) "Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva" "Paradigm Changes in Halacha" or the quite timely "obsession with kitniyot" In AhS this week, I found I was not alone in concluding from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim ch.4, cases in both TB and RY) that there is a general rule binding one (of a community) to maintain minhag avos. (At least when there is no conflicting single minhag hamaqom.) The AhS (YD 119:42, closing paranthetic) cites the minhag of Benei Baishan (Pesachim 50b) not to travel from Tzur to Tzidon on erev Shabbos. His case is a visitor who is keeping he minhagim of his host community. The Shakh and Maharal Chaviv say that if everyone else is eatting something that by his minhag is prohibited -- not as local pesaq, but as actual minhag -- he may eat it with them. The AhS leaves it with a tzarikh iyun gadol, because visiting a place should not allow their minhagim to override minhag avos. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:43:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:43:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57110C14.1000403@sero.name> On 04/15/2016 10:49 AM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: > 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your > lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond > edible. This is not true. The ChTz says no such thing. -- 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 Sun Apr 17 09:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit Message-ID: I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat. Both of them are important experts in halacha and modern technology Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need t fixler said he heard the same psak from t ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 03:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:27:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 1:02 PM Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both > Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat.... > Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it > was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need r fixler said he heard > the same psak from r ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan Why is it not mesaken mane? [Transliteration mine. -micha] -- Shui Haber From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:27:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Shui Haber wrote: > Why is it not mesaken mane? [transliteration still mine -micha] They hold that anything that cannot be seen or felt is nor metaken-maneh or any other melacha. Of course if one pushes buttons or has a model in which the results are shown immediately on the watch then it would be forbidden. The assumption is that nothing on the watch indicates that it is recording. Rosen indicated to me that he has written all this but I do not at present have his teshuva. The general approach of tzomet is that (almost) all their products are meant for special individuals etc, sick, police, doctors etc when needed. Though they don't manufacturer a smart watch the same principles hold. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:51:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:51:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us from my question.) My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can remember. But the hagada seems to say more. It does not merely tell what the proper response should be, but it also seems to direct that response to specific responder(s). I am referring to the hagada's words, "v'af atah". What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! Am I totally off track? Anyone see my question? Does anyone have a translation or perush that doesn't ignore the word "af"? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB: > > Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger > (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) > G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and > tragedy. > > 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO > 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil > 3. God exists > > First proposal. Therefore > 4. There is no evil > > But observation will tell you: > 5. There is evil > > We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. > (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually once started a thread here called ?What can?t God do??. Some examples: Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? Can God lie? I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. > (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a > prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil > to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, God, have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God really want that? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:04:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:04:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5714F781.9020002@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:51 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: > > (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem > (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar > (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh > (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved > > (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us > from my question.) I will, however, point out that translating it "knock out", or as any kind of blow, is completely ignorant. There is simply no way that it can mean that. So where does this stupid idea come from? It *could* come from some amhoretz confusing it with "hakei", hei kaf hei, meaning to hit. But I think it's more likely to come from Yiddish, a language the baal hagada never even heard of, and the phrase "hack ois", or in English "hack out". > My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply > have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that > would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can > remember. What specific wording are you suggesting instead of the ones the baal hagadah uses? > What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should > hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument > being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh > his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! > > Am I totally off track? I think so. How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him. -- 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 Mon Apr 18 08:09:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:09:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: What is the status of cooking kitniyot in a pot on Pesach (for ashkenazim). Outside of Israel this is relevant only for small children, sick etc. In Israel it is relevant this year as to whether one can cook kitniyot on the 7th day of Pesach for the immediate following shabbat. All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the pot even for use the following year ! He further claims that this is the standard custom. I have seen that RHS allows use the same day. Does anyone know of others who require actually kashering the pot even if it won't be used until Pesach next year. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:04:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: I asked why the Hagada uses the words "v'af atah" to introduce the answer to the rasha. R' Zev Sero responded: > How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked > son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that > your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say > something harsh to him. Interesting thought. But if so, then for the other OOPS! I hadn't noticed that these exact same words introduce the Hagada's answer to the chacham. And rightly so - Your child is asking a detailed question, and you too should respond with a detailed answer. My bad. Thanks! But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? (The She'eino Yodea Lish'ol never asks anything at all, so there is no congruency to invoke RZS's suggestion.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:14:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:14:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57156A61.2000800@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:04 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > > But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: > > 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? > 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? > 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? Because he simply quotes the pasuk. In the cases of the first two sons he (for some reason) davka *doesn't* quote the pasuk's response (Avadim Hayinu to the chacham and Zevach Pesach Hu to the rasha), but makes one up for the chacham, and borrows the she'eino yodea lish'ol's answer for the rasha. For the second two sons he simply quotes the pesukim verbatim. -- 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 Tue Apr 19 13:34:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:34:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to others subunits (e.g. ethnic). Any good actuary (or even a poor one) can tell you correlation doesn't prove causation, but it does provide some thoughts on some interesting questions (e.g. why the switch to ethnic minhagim from geographic ones?). 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 01:07:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:07:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: a story from years ago A friend of mine lived near RMF on the lower east side. One year RMF invited him for seder. However the friend didn't eat gebrochs but was too polite to tell RMF that he couldn't come because he was more machmir and so made up some excuse. Same thing happened the next year. The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat at my seder. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 05:17:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:17:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special Message-ID: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Pesach is a Yom Tov of diverse moods. The tragic and heroic, the mournful and hopeful, the somber and sentimental ? strangely commingled and reflected in the services and rituals. One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l?zecher aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b?Av. Interestingly, the first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b?Av. So as Pesach begins Friday evening this year (and last), so too, Tisha b?Av (actual date) begins Friday evening this year (and last). At our seder, we read about the Four Children (quite different from each other, but a portion of each of the sons in all of us). On Pesach we usher in the solemn days of Sefirah, which cast a spell upon the mirthful spirit of this Yom Tov and which recalls the ill-fated Bar Kochba rebellion with its gloomy aftermath; and on the same night, we open the door for Eliyahu HaNavi, the harbinger of glad tidings. On the day we recite Yizkor (with sad overtones), we recite Hallel (quite the opposite). On the day when we read the Haftorah of the ?Valley of the Dry Bones,? and we ask with the prophet: ?Son of man, can these bones live?? (Ezek. 37); this very same day, we read Shir Hashirim, the song of youth and of hope. When we think of all the trouble, travail, terrorism in the world and some of the trials and tribulations in our own lives, we can drink four cups of wine and temporarily forget our troubles. May your present be better than your past and not as good as your future! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:42:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:42:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special In-Reply-To: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> References: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Message-ID: <20160420154253.GA21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:17:29AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l'zecher : aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b'Av. Interestingly, the : first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b'Av. The iqar is to have two cooked foods. Egg and shankbone is a layer on top of that. Judging from the Ari's lining up the items on the ke'arah with the 10 sefiros, wre are using the egg as the cooked food in memory of the chagigah, and the bone to regall the qorban pesach. One could link that to mourning, that we are mourning the real seder, complete with qorban, as we sit down to our best-we-can-do one. And we did lose the ability to make a qorban pesach on 9 beAv. But the egg isn't really about aveilus directly. 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 Wed Apr 20 08:47:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:47:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:07:55AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly : asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the : real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 : guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said : now you can eat at my seder. I know also the IM permits Ashkenazim who daven "Sfard" to switch back to Ashkenaz (even over 150 years after the family first switched to). But I didn't think he was in general a believer in the idea that Litvisher minhagim were superior to other East European ones. Just that davening was differenct because it's a switch back to the earlier nusach. So what's going on here? Why would he encourage someone to quit the minhag of gebrochts? (For weaker grounds than usually argued against qitnios.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:57:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:57:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> References: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> I can't answer for sure but my guess would be that RMF felt that one could quit gebrochs for a sufficiently good reason and he felt that this was a good reason. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 20:17:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos References: Message-ID: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> R? AM: What about an ordinary old-fashioned film camera? Without a flash, there's nothing electrical about it. In fact, when one presses the shutter, nothing at all happens except that some chemical reactions occur in the film. Even after Shabbos, there is no visible change to the film, until after it has undergone some specific chemical treatment. Yet I've never seen a shomer shabbos person use such a camera on Shabbos, nor have I ever hear it suggested that it might only be d'rabanan. ------------------ Old MYG: That?s a great question, I think, about the film camera. I agree that it makes sense that it should be only a d?rabanan, except for Polaroid. And the d?rabanan may well be that since its entire purpose is to be in service to that Kesivah, it?s a Kli She?melachto L?issur, and therefore muktzah. But if that?s so, then the heteirim of muktzah would therefore apply, like tiltul min hatzad, and shvus d?shvus, l?tzorech gufo, and so on? After reading through it, I still don?t see any reason to prohibit it besides for Muktzah? Rabbi Bleich at this link (http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%203/Survey%20of%20Recent.pdf) quotes R? SZA that it?s ?mistaver? that taking a film photo is assur m?drabanan. Rabbi Bleich himself is not so impressed with that argument. ----------------------------- New MYG: I thought of another issur ? taking a photo with a film camera is Hachanah, because you?re only taking it for the result that you will get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d?oraysa. KT and CKVS, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:50:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:41:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the harsh attack. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:32:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:32:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> References: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160421193255.GA9816@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:17:10PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I thought of another issur -- taking a photo with a film camera is : Hachanah, because you're only taking it for the result that you will : get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d'oraysa. Return back to nidon didan (from the subject line)... A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the same reasoning would apply. But many other such devices can be used as a digital watch on Shabbos. So carrying it around -- even if you want the step tracking -- is not ONLY for the tracking. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:50:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:50:56PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to : make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not : a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. Actually, for RMF in particular, I find that hard to imagine. The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they were in error, he does advocate a more limited form -- cooking dishes from boiled matzah because the result may be confused with recipes that produce chameitz. The Keneses haGedolah (17th cent) confirms the Raavan's fears with a story of it actually happening. Someone made fish "breaded" with matzah meal, and the neighbor mistakenly learned from it that it was okay to fry fish in actual flour. Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after the Besh"t -- there are stories about the Baal Shem Tov eating keneidelach on Pesach, the Magid of Mezritch did not eat gebrochts. The SA haRav (discussed here annually) says that the change was due to a change in how we make matzah. This is the same generation in which kneading time was counted toward the mil, and therefore the whole process got more rushed. Until then, the chance of umixed flour remaining on/in the dough was unrealistic. I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thing cracker matzos; it would only apply to the Rama's only less than a tefach matzah. So here you have two people writing at close to the same time, one explaing why the minhag recently started, the other assuming the minhag is old and no longer applicable to the current umdena. But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer applicable. 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 Thu Apr 21 13:04:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:04:14 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: between gebroks and kitniyos, with our modern eye could we say one is more justified or were both products of the time. eg gebroks was invented in altererebe's time as a reaction to the nexus of thick matzos with incompetent bakers. kitniyos a reaction to legume-flour nexus . today , almost all matzos are either mechanized or learnedly baked; and only thin matzos made in ashkenazi land [unless you order softmatza.com]. and though legume flours like chickpea are extant, the communities that primarily use them never accepted this new minhag. it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them off... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 19:50:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on > Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal > Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. > I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the > pot even for use the following year ! Last week, in the thread "Ta'am kitniyos", I wrote that Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this, yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. So I will now rephrase the question that I had asked there: RET referred here to "seforim". Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this question in writing, and gives his reasoning. (My wild guess is that if such a source can be found, it is less likely to be in the context of baby food, and more likely to be in the context of an Ashkenazi who was invited to eat at a Sephardi home on Pesach.) Anyone know of such seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 13:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:50:07 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2016 5:50 AM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they > were in error, he does advocate a more limited form ... > Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after > the Besh"t... The SA haRav... > I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. > Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that > gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thin cracker matzos... > But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world > used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which > case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer > applicable. I don't see how any of these considerations suggest that Gebrochts is a Minhag that requires Hatarah. In fact I think it more than likely they reflect otherwise. The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are hardly substantial. And if there is any substance to the reason being related to the change in the way Matza is made, well then being so late, it can hardly be considered a binding Minhag. And one opinion is not adequate to propel activity to the point of being a binding Minhag, especially when it is so poorly justified. BTW it is astonishing that Matza of 10mm thickness be considered edible when baked to the point of being hard. You would need a hammer and cold chisel to break it. It makes no sense. Such Matza would only be edible if it was baked soft. Re the ShTeshuvah, he limits the problem to soft Matza, which is GRATED on a RibAysen (and explains that the problem no longer exists due to changes to the Matza used for making meal being baked hard and describe CRUSHING it) so it must have been soft. Soft Matza that is whole can be easily evaluated to determine if it is fully baked. Once it is grated however, that becomes impossible. The problem is compounded when you remember that probably the most important quality sought by the balabusta is that it be as white as possible so the risk of being under baked is all the greater. There was not ever a concern that flour remained in the Matza and that might become Chamets. But even if it did it can not become Chamets since it has been heated. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 09:11:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160422161136.GA4937@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:04:14PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them : off... An earlier question... Given our lack of minhag hamaqom, do we want to cast minhag avos off? What ties us to community if we're not connecting "laterally" to our contemporaries if not our connection to the past? Pesach is so experiential and so nostalgia driven, perhaps we should harbor / develop enough attachment to minhag avos (mimeticism) for that alone to motivate keeping qitniyos. :-)|,|ii! (And a special :-)|,ii to any Granikim out there!) -Micha PS: Yes, I do appreciate the irony that in a post about preserving minhag avos, I do a "shout out" to those who use 2 matzos at their seder. Even though most of them are doing so in a choice of textualism over mimeticism. -- 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 Fri Apr 22 09:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 06:50:07AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are : hardly substantial. The stories about the Besht are that he DID eat gebrochts. This isin contrast to the SA haRav who was firmly against. And the SA haRav (shu"T #6 in the bac of vol 6) IS substantial. See last year's BTW, while I fint this hard to accept as RMF's pesaq, R Eli Turkel told us last year that RSZA does hold as per the story about RMF: > In Halichos Shlomo (p90) it states explicitly that one can change his > custom and eat gebrochs after hatart nedarim. However, this should be done > only if there is a good reason (tzorach chashuv) for the change. Thus, for > a chatan he would allow the hatarat nedarim if keeping bebrochs would cause > family difficulties. And R Yisrael Herczeg wrote: > ... I just looked over the notes of the droshoh Rav Yitzchok > Mordechai HaKohen Rubin gave last Shabbos. He said that Rav Elyashiv > allowed for hataras neder on gebrochts. He also mentioned that Rav Chaim > Kanyevski said that the Steipler was matir neder on gebrochts for someone > who had difficulty eating matzah unless it was softened with liquid. He > added that Rav Chaim Greineman said that the Chazon Ish told him that the > Steipler's heter was invalid. And yet in his own life: > I asked Rav Elyashiv z"l if I could be matir neder on gebrokts and he told > me I could not. >From R/Prof Y Levine: > A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud > of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in > the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating > gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar > Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: > The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one > who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to > eating Gebrokts. > It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may > rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. > Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when > Matzohs were thick Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST that the minhag refers to a kind of matzah most of you do not eat. I have a few lb from the Syrian community in Flatbush, in addition to the usual. So if I had the minhag of nisht gebrochts, RYSE might still have told me to limit my hataras nedarim and continue not eating Syrian-style matzos with liquids. IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for reasons similar to the RYSE report. :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 14:11:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding hachanah, R' Micha Berger wrote: > A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the > same reasoning would apply. True, but hachana is a problem only if specific actions are taken to do that preparation. For example, washing one's hands over a sink full of dirty dishes is okay, even if one likes the idea that the dishes will get wet, provided that he'd be washing his hands there anyway, even if the sink was empty. So too for the Fitbit, which is already attached to whatever, and one is not doing any specific action for the Fitbit. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 24 04:00:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:00:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says > he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the > minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST ... > IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my > opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. > And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for > reasons similar to the RYSE report. May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. The closest true argument was documented by the ShTeshuvah who clearly related the problem to the type of Matza baked to be used for Gebrochts - it was at risk of not being properly baked [presumably because they were trying to keep it as white a possible] and being Chamets in the first place - it actually had nothing to do with the Matza Meal becoming wet. And that problem was solved by modifying the Matza baked for meal to be baked hard. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 15:27:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim Message-ID: In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: shabasos limnucha moadim l'simcha chagim uzmanim l'sason I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are, especially as opposed to the other three. But what precisely distinguishes the other three from each other? My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they the same in regards to Sason? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 12:58:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:58:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> An Areivim exchange... On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08pm IDT, R `Eli Turkel wrote: > what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:31pm +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes : from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. ... Doesn't this just beg the question? I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 2nd day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 18:22:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:22:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Areivim, Lisa Liel wrote: >> On Areivim R `Eli Turkel wrote: >>> what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts >> According to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. > I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah > of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw > from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? Who says he *did* associate lions with melucha? The pesukim don't make such an association. Unkelus does make that connection, translating "gur aryeh Yehudah" as a prophecy that royalty will come to Yehudah, but even there Rashi explains that this means that a young David will become a mighty king, just as a lion cub becomes a mighty beast. So the lions there are not really a symbol of royalty but of might; and Unkelus's treatment of the rest of the pasuk seems to confirm that. But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. -- 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 Apr 27 00:50:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:50:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> The best source is RYZA halichot shlomo volume on moadim - Pesach page 350 (shin-mem) He pasjens that (like this year) one can cook kitniyot on friday for shabbat assuming there are people in the neighborhood who eat kitniyot (ie sefardim) and on shabbat one can eat foods that has in them chametz derabban. One should be machmir only on chametz deoraisa. The notes below go into detailed reasons. I didnt see anything about the dishes. but as mentioned he just casually says one can cook the kitniyot. Rav Rimon in his hagadah (ie the last few years) also allows cooking kitniyot for the last shabbat after pesach Though it isnt a sefer the email sent out of ROY's piskei halachot also allow cooking kitniyot on friday for shabbat for ashkenazim again using the reasoning that sefardim can eat the kitniyot on Pesach itself (he quotes the shut of RSZA minchat shlomo tenina end of siman 17). He paskens that it is preferable to use special pots -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 00:56:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:56:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RMF and gebrocha Message-ID: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebrochts According to Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik of Vitebsk, the custom originated with Dov Ber of Mezeritch .[2] (This appears, for example, in Shulchan Aruch HaRav , c. 1800.) In fact, the members of some nineteenth century Lithuanian Jewish communities deliberately ate gebrochts to demonstrate the permissibility of this practice.[*citation needed *] Both the Vilna Gaon [3] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ruled that there is no reason to avoid eating gebrochts. (no source given) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 05:03:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:03:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Changes in Shmoneh Esreh Message-ID: Yesterday, as I was davening mincha, I found myself working hard to keep my eyes in the siddur, lest I make one of the mistakes that I'd have to repeat Shmoneh Esreh for. It occurred to me that in the course of the year, there are many minor changes which are *not* m'akev the tefila, such as Anenu, Al Hanisim, and the constant choice between Sim Shalom and Shalom Rav. But it seems to me that only four of those are so critical that - depending on circumstances - they can be m'akev one's Shmoneh Esreh: Morid Hageshem or omitting it HaMelech Hakadosh vs. HaE-l Hakadosh Tal Umatar Yaaleh V'yavo The chidush that came to me suddenly is that of these four changes, *three* of them apply on Chol Hamoed Pesach. There are three parts of the tefilah that we must get right, because messing up *any* of those three requires us to repeat the Shmoneh Esreh from scratch. This seems to be unique. Is there another part of the year where even two difference changes are me'akev? In Eretz Yisrael, Tal Umatar begins only two weeks after Geshem, but in Chu"l, I don't think there's ever a situation where even two of those apply at the same time. Even on Aseres Y'mei Teshuva, which has six changes (Zachrenu, Mi Kamocha, HaMelech Hakadosh, HaMelech Hamishpat, U'chsov, B'sefer), only one of them is critical. I'm not sure if there is any special significance to all this. I just wanted to point it out in case it might help others pay more attention and not forget the changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 08:10:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:10:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73622773-BB32-4FA9-B6ED-CFF33EF6C253@optimum.net> RMGR: > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. > I would have thought just the reverse. If there?s a halachic foundation all it requires is a psak. When the behavior is extra-halachic we may require hataras nedarim. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 09:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:12:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:06:02AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) ... :> We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. :> (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO : This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually : once started a thread here called "What can't God do?". Some examples: : Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? : Can God lie? The Moreh discusses both points. 1- Omnipotence is really a statement that nothing lies beyond his Potency than insisting He posesses an infinite amount of power. 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless nonsense clauses. The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Why? It would be pure Tov, not Chesed. : Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. Thus the idea I labeled #1 above from the Moreh, and his via negativa. R' Moshe Taqu infamously takes the opposite approach -- it would be presumptuous to define G-d even to the extent of insisting that we must limit ourselves to defining what He Isn't. RMT therefore insists we must accept the descriptions in Tanakh uncritically. (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, one way or the other.) :> (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a :> prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil :> to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. : Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general : problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, : God, : have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods : may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. : So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God : really want that? Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congential birth defects and other such natural evils. This could be one element in a broader answer. And that was sort of my point... By ignoring the whole subject of theodicy, Dr Haslanger misses the main point she would need to refute. As an aside, a central part of RYBS's hashkafah is that much of free will is choosing between goods that are in dialecitcal tension. More often than a pure good vs evil choice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? the tragic which :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427170529.GB29457@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:41:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah wrote: : Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you : should also say something harsh to him : : This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the : harsh attack. Maybe it's true by definition. A rasha is someone who is beyond listening. And the child ready to hear the soft response isn't a rasha. I saw someone suggest haqheih here is meant in the sense of morbid craving, not blunting. As in Y-mi Shevi'is 4:6 (vilna 12a) "Amar Rabbi Avun: derekh haqeihus okhelin oso". And shinav -- in the sense of veshinantam. In which case, you have the pretty idea: Make him crave his studies. But it doesn't work. "Haqhei es shinav" is an idiom that is used elsewhere by Chazal, such as Sotah 49a (2x). (There is also "anavim qeihos" as unripe or sour grapes in Avos 4:20, but that may just be a third usage.) But since haqhei es shinav is an idiom, maybe the idiomatic meaning is far milder than a literal translation. Like "shut him up". (Edginess of my translation intentional, to relay the aggressiveness implied by the idiom.) :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:21:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:21:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> On 04/27/2016 12:12 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore > part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. > But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, > any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless > nonsense clauses. > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. CS Lewis agreed with the Rambam. See my .sig Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach bigvul". The purpose of creation, Chabad says, and of all our avodah, is to make Him a "dira batachtonim", which is a logical impossibility. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 13:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed : >create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", : and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach : bigvul".... Nowadays there are multiple logics. Some are just mathematical playthings, but many are used in the real world. (The two I somewhat know are fuzzy logic, used in many problems like thermostats, to represent predicates like "hot" which has varying degrees of truth; and quantum logic, used in subatomic physics.) Speaking of non-classical logics , I heard RYBS discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. Because RYBS's topic was how bein hashemashos is actually both days at once. This explains why an esrog used one day is assur BHS because it's the same day and then assur the next day because it was also BHS -- the start of that day. But the notion of noone special logic makes the Rambam's idea that logic is part of Truth and thus of His Essence much harder to support. You would have to go meta, and speak of the usability of various logics in general. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 14:46:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:46:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name>,<20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> > > Speaking of non-classical logics > , I heard RYBS > discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which > he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows > for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that > halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. ---------------------- I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law of the excluded middle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle Moadim lsimcha 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 Apr 27 18:35:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:35:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: I had asked: > Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many > publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that > kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. > But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this > question in writing, and gives his reasoning. Yes! "Medical Halachah for Everyone" [1980, Feldheim] by Abraham S. Abraham MD, page 82, gives a specific procedure for an Ashkenazi who is suffering from diarrhea and needs to eat rice on Pesach, and then writes: > Separate utensils must be used for cooking and eating such foods on Pesach. His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf Hachayim). Then, he discusses at length whether or not a (Ashkenazi) guest needs to worry if his (Sefardi) host used those keilim in the past 24 hours, and several related situations. HOWEVER -- I am shocked by how different this halacha appears in Dr Abraham's book, and in the sefer he cites. I concede that the Kaf Hachayim does cite several problems that the Ashkenazi should be concerned with, and I concede that Dr Abraham's procedure safeguards against them all. But it also conjures up additional problems that the Kaf Hachayim was NOT worried about. Some might say that I am being too hard on a "kitzur sefer" that tries to service the layman by packing a lot of information into a few pages. I say: On the contrary! His book could have been two words shorter if he had left out the words "and eating". If the kli rishon is okay after 24 hours, I would imagine that the kli sheni is okay even sooner. Oh - here's another thing: The Kaf Hachayim was talking about a *healthy* Ashkenazi who eats from Sefardi keilim. I think that if Dr Abraham is going to apply those halachos to an Ashkenazi *choleh*, maybe he should cite a posek on it. Caveat lector! Check the sources whenever you can! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:20:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > > > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. > > He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any > of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf > Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the beginning of the first volume? Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:29:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Old Audio Tapes Message-ID: <57581d198d4c45e5863bdf9e300d7dac@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Our shul is getting rid of a large number of old shiurim on audio cassettes and CD's. Does anyone know of any digitization projects that might be interested before they are disposed of? Kol Tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 09:26:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:26:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] I shall sing to Hashem for He is exalted above the arrogant Message-ID: <1461860967014.47103@stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/gmsnkks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 30 12:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:29:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Matzik l'rabim Message-ID: <5725078F.7070109@zahav.net.il> Rav Asher Weiss discusses a case in which a small number of graves are found in a place that is not designated to be a beit qevarot. This piece of land is slated for a large construction project, which would in all likelihood mean damaging the graves. He discusses various reasons for moving (or not moving) the graves. One of the ideas that he brings up is "matziq et harabim" (damage to the public). He concludes that this reason wouldn't apply here; the claim "matziq et harabim" can be used to permit moving graves only if the graves cause teumah to kohenim. Why would forcing kohenim to take a different path (possibly a very small detour) be sufficient reason to move graves but a major building project not? PS: For a variety of other reasons, RAW permitted moving the graves. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:24:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 19:24:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: in response to David Riceman's suggestion - extra-halachic behaviour is likely to require Hatarah whilst those that have a Halachic foundation require a Pesak consider this: if there is no Halachic foundation for a Minhag then it will never require Hatarah, it is an error. The custom to sniff snuff in Shule on Shabbos can never gain status of a Minhag that requires Hatarah if there is some Halachic foundation then notwithstanding it not being recognised as binding Halacha, if it is adopted as a custom it may well require Hatarah if one wishes to abandon the custom Therefore since we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation of there being a risk that wet Matzos may become Chamets, the Minhag of Gebrochts is no different to the Paroches being blue or maroon and suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 08:34:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 11:34:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: I have a question about an Old French word that appears in a Rashi. I hope that someone on the list is fairly fluent in French, or has access to such a person. But first, an introduction... It is not unusual for an English-speaker to refer to Rosh Hashana as the "New Year", or to Yom Kippur as the "Day of Atonement". These are legitimate translations, and it is clear to me that they are used in certain circles. In contrast, the name of Chanuka is generally not translated; it is transliterated or adapted into English as Chanukkah or Hanuka or something similar, but translations like "Festival of Dedication" (and "Festival of Lights", which isn't really a translation at all) are much rarer. But this post is not about those holidays; it is about the one we just completed. I have long thought that the English language was unique, in that we have a translation for the name Pesach, namely "Passover". I concede that although we might perceive of "Passover" as a basic word of simple English, it was actually coined by William Tyndale in the early 1500s, for the specific purpose of translating the root "pesach" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible#Legacy). Be that as it may, it *IS* an easily-understood term for any English-speaker, most especially in the contexts of Shmos 12:11-13: "They will eat the Passover offering... and I will pass over them..." and Shmos 12:27: ?It is the Passover offering, to G-d Who passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt..." I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the focus on the experiential story. But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:16:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:16:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 11:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 20:13:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> On 4/27/2016 7:09 PM, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: > I don't know on what basis the digests say that you need separate kelim > for kitniyos. The taam of kitniyos that is absorbed into the pot in > which it was cooked is automatically batel. I think it's just recommended > for a heker, so you'll remember not to eat kitniyos yourself, and not > really necessary at all. > And if you know before Pesach that you're going to cook kitniyos for > next Shabbos, you'll leave it out of the chometz cupboard. I read various guides about this Shabbat. To sum up the issues involved: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. 2) Does the eiruv tavshilin cover cooking kitniyot? Since you would be cooking the rice/beans when they are assur to you, maybe teh ET doesn't cover it. However according to Rav Shlomo Zalman, if one lives in a place in which there are Sefardim, the theoretical possibility that a Sefardi person would stop over is enough. 3) Checking the kitniyot: One has to check the kitniyot for chameitz. I personally bought Kitov rice that had been checked twice and only a third check was required. Why they didn't check it a third time, I don't know. 4) Anything cold (eg chummus) isn't a problem at all. 5) Addendum: This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issues. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:45:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 12:45:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Simon Montagu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < >> He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any >> of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf >> Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the > beginning of the first volume? > > Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two > possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera > Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is > the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! Hazon Ovadiah on the Haggada (note 8 on page 55 of the 5739 edition) brings some of the same sources, without so many rashei teivot: Shu"t Zera Emet helek 3 (helek Orah Hayyim siman 48) http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=742&st=&pgnum=122 Hukkat Hapesah siman 453 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7855&st=&pgnum=172 But as far as I can tell none of the sources are directly addressing the question of an Ashkenazi cooking kitniot in his own house, as opposed to being invited to a Sephardi. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 14:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 17:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: On Areivim, in the thread "kitniyot", R' Ben Waxman wrote: > It doesn't make sense to me that the only holiday in which > the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor has become so > divisive that people would consider not eating with family. My guess is that "the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor" is a reference to how the Korban Pesach must be eaten. I certainly can't argue with that, but there is much more to this story. The Pesach 5776 issue of YU's "Torah To-Go" has an article titled " Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach" (the url is too long; just google the title and you'll find it) by Rabbi Yona Reiss, who writes: > The late Belzer Rebbe (Rav Aharon Rokeach zt"l) brings a > different source for the custom of not eating in others' > homes on Pesach, noting that only with respect to Shavuot > and Sukkot does the Torah mention the notion of rejoicing > together with others (Devorim 16:11, 16:14), but not with > respect to Pesach. Therefore the scriptural implication > is that on Pesach there may be a basis for parties to > refrain from joining each other for their meals. BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 19:38:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:38:35 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> `On the matter of Gebrochts, R?MG Rabi wrote in Issue 43 > Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to > make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not > a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. > > RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on > the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. > and in Issue 44 > May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a > custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - > as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. Mori V?Rabbi R? Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to eat soft matzot. The Ramah quotes the minhag that the matzos should be thinner than an etzba ...the soft matzos are thinner just like what color you have on the poroches is not a minhag, it is a matter of taste. Not every little sneeze is considered a minhag. However, if a person descends from chassidishe families and they have a minhag not to eat gebrokts *unless someone should pasken for him that this is a minhag shtus or a minhag b'taus, it would not even help to make a Hatoras nidorim*. Hatoras nidorim for a minhag only works if it is a *personal* minhag. The baal ha'neder has to request from the beis din the ha'tora. *If an entire community has a minhag, you have to get the entire kehilla to be matir the neder. One member of the community cannot be matir the neder on his own*. Just like if a person decides that he does not want to wait six hours between milchig and fleishig, he cannot be matir the neder, *he* is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years ago when the matzohs were much thicker. The concept of dovor sh'bminyan, etc. that even if one lives in a generation when the reason for the takanah no longer applies, the takanah is still binding, only applied to takonos d'rabbonon and *does not apply to minhogim*. The Ramah in his teshuvos writes like this and rashi in the first perek in Beitza writes the same. If I am not mistaken, I think the very last teshuva in Achiezer volume 3 by r. chaim ozer writes the same.? I conclude that we should be much more careful before attempting to extrapolate from Poskim of the enormous stature of Mori V?Rabbi. Dr. Isaac Balbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 22:01:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:01:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Best, Meir G. Rabi On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah > wrote: > : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the > illustration > : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in > force > : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] > > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza > on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for > me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable > hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:28:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:28:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically. And after the kitniyos were cooked in it the issur is automatically batel; the taam of kitniyos in the walls is surely less than 50%! -- 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 Sun May 1 21:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5726D8FF.6020709@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 05:48 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this > way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is > especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. I believe it got started because on Pesach there are so many different standards that it's often difficult to be sure that this is the case. Even if the host has more chumros than the guest, they may be different ones, and there will be something the guest doesn't eat and the host does. Detailed inquiry about these matters may be embarrassing. If the guest is certain that the host's standards are as strict or stricter than his own in all matters, then AFAIK the minhag doesn't apply. -- 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 Mon May 2 03:42:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160502104240.GB10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:01:51PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza : > on Pesach.... :> no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Well it doesn't need to be. Topics drift. However, I would ask whether RHS would compare Ashkenazi matzah styles to fashion rather than minhag if he could not prove there was a time when Ashkenazim too used soft matzos. You were using his idea as an example of minhag requiring a halachic foundation, that the risk gebrochts avoids be a real one. I don't see that. (It would also do wonders to qitniyos if that question were admissible.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:48:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:38:35PM +1000, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Mori V'Rabbi R' Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) : "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to : eat soft matzot.... : he is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to : say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years : ago when the matzohs were much thicker...." Why quote RTG when the Pischei Teshuvah said it first? OTOH, in the same generation, the SA haRav says that gebrochts only makes sense *after* we started counting kneading time toward the 18 min. And as a pragmatic matter, they both were very likely part of the same change in matzah-making norms. (If you have less time to bake matzos now that kneading ate up some of the time, you need thinner matzos.) I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old could the minhag have been? And if so, could RTG's theory be correct even in our day? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:51:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:51:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 05:12:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:12:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I saw somewhere that ein veatlim issur lechatchila doesnt apply to minhagim. Question: can one cook gebrochs on the 7th day of Pesach for the 8th day (for those who dont eat gebrochs 7 days). This was particularly relevant this year when the 8th day was shabbat. --------------------------------- On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 04:52:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57273F64.2010405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:51 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. > > : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're > : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste > : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... > > To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing > something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior > reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. This should be obvious, because if it were not so then it would always be forbidden to cook kitniyos, or anything else that is batel berov, even in keilim designated for this. -- 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 Mon May 2 04:57:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572740B0.9050306@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:48 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's > theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not > causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because > the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- > their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is > no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old > could the minhag have been? It wasn't even a generational change. The Alter Rebbe says it was only "these last twenty years or more", i.e. within his own memory. -- 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 Mon May 2 07:02:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 10:02:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:12 AM 5/2/2016, R. Akiva Miller wrote: >BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a >question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have >legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 07:28:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 08:28:08 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Old French In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at May 2, 2016 03:12:46 am Message-ID: <14621956880.190dB.12358@m5.shachter> > I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to > have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According > to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in > French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be > transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than > Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when > they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on > an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the > focus on the experiential story. > But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After > explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes > (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in > ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for > Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." The French word for "step" is "pas". In Rashi's time the 's' was pronounced. That gives you the first two consonants of the p-s-x root. The third consonant is an aspirate which, although it never drops out in inflected forms like the h does, might still be considered dispensible by an aspirational (sorry, I couldn't resist) etymologist willing to cut corners. It is a bogus albeit tempting etymology, like the ones you see in Hirsch. > A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been > inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but > that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the > question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How > do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? > And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? I can't tell you how the French of Rashi's time referred to Pesax. There are no French translations of the Hebrew Scriptures dating to then. The French Jews probably said "Pesach". That's what Yiddish speakers say today and I have no reason to think that their ancestors did any differently. French Jews nowadays -- who speak, by and large, French, although there are some who speak Arabic among themselves -- also say "Pesach", usually. Sometimes they say "Paque" (circumflex accent on the 'a' deliberately omitted because the Avodah digest software chokes on it, which is unfortunate, because the circumflex, which always indicates a missing 's', would be highly informative if you could see it), which is the correct French word, but it is rare for them to do so. I don't like saying "Paque" because it is also the French word for "Easter" and thus evokes a disagreeable sense of linguistic imperialism, even though the imperialism is almost certainly operating in the other direction here, I would think -- taking a Hirschian risk here, but there are worse people to emulate -- that the French word for "Easter" obviously comes from p-s-x. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:26:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:26:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tenets of faith Message-ID: > (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R > Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes > that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT > actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, > one way or the other.) Raavad : Born : 1125, Narbonne, France Died : 1198, Vauvert, France R, Moshe ben Chasdai Taku: 1250-1290 CE So Raavad couldn't have referred to R Taku -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 08:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57276FE3.4040104@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 08:12 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. Why does it need to be hefsed merubeh. Mechiras chometz is 100% valid, and everyone is entitled to rely on it no matter how easy it would be not to. If people want to be machmir for themselves that's very nice but they have no right to expect other people to follow their crazy chumros, any more than they follow those of other people. > OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. > Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the > supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? It seems to me that this attitude rests on a fujndamental amhoratzus: the idea that chametz she'avar alav hapesach is an inherent issur, an issur cheftza, so that if you hold for some reason that mechiras chometz is somehow flawed then you must hold that to the same extent the food sold is tainted. But chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a kenas on the owner for deliberately or negligently transgressing Bal Yera'eh Uval Yimatzei. Therefore even if you don't wish to rely on mechiras chametz, and destroy all your own chametz rather than sell it, the shopkeeper is not obligated to share your crazy chumra, and when he sold his chametz you must admit that he did so beheter gamur. If so, he doesn't deserve a kenas, so his chametz remains permitted even to you. -- 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 Mon May 2 10:03:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:03:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X isn't good enough". Ben On 5/2/2016 2:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store > can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are > communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these > contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel > its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:35:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim Message-ID: R Isaac, Please provide the references for the Shut Ramah and the Rashi in the first Perek Beitza. As for the Achiezer, that quite clearly supports the assertion that ONLY if the practice of not being MeNaker the hind-quarters is associated with a Halacha can it have any sort of binding power. It is truly confounding to see some people asserting the views of various Rabbanim without ever finding it necessary to actually do more than tell a story or tell us that the Posek said "it" to a friend or "it" was heard directly. For example we just had someone quote RHS saying a Halacha from the Rama, which the Rama does NOT say - this seriously undermines the credibility. Neither should we accept the report that RHS Paskened that those who do not eat Gebrochts require a Pesak that it is a Shtus because Hatarah does not work since a community has followed this practice, and the entire kehilla requires Hatarah. That's like an entire Kehilla following the practice of using royal blue for the Paroches. Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation, is a Dovor ShaBeMinyan, is pretty close to fantasy. Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from stories and hearsay from Poskim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:53:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502165329.GE14957@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:29AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from : stories and hearsay from Poskim. Are you REALLY saying that RIB should not accept an answer he personally received from his own rebbe? Or that we shouldn't accept that he can quote that answer verbatum, albeit with a "(emphasis is mine)"? If that's not sufficient evidence of a person's position, no quote on the list works, and we might as well shut down. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 10:37:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:37:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502173731.GF14957@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:12:10PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can : sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that : don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? Don't buy all chameitz that has been sold, or all chameitz that was "sold" by a store than then proceeded to leave it on the shelves and sell individually over Pesach? The latter is the nearest I've seen in my experience to such communities. After all, it's more ready to conclude that the initial sale of all chameitz was a meaningless asmachta, and not a real sale than it is to conclude the storeowners were selling someone else's merchandise and stealing the profits. But if you mean that people aren't supposed to buy properly sold chameitz, yes that makes no sense -- the storeowner still suffers a hefsed merubah, just days later. In any case, I do not think we still hold that mechiras chameitz requires the hefsed to be merubah. OTOH, it's more than merely a "crazy chumerah", as Zev puts it. According to the Bach (OC 448 "ve'im") mechiras chameitz of the sort where nothing actually is moved to space the nakhri already owns was originally promulgated as a widespread practice specifically for "yayin saraf" dealers, and only because they can't move their full merchandise. (The actual mechanism is in the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6.) Resisting growth of a heter to include boxes we could just throw into the trunk of our car is quite different than "crazy chumerah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:24:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:24:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" mindset). Ben On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus > standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the > would-be guest"? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 01:03 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the > custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after > Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X > isn't good enough". 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how silly you think their reason. 2. As far as I'm concerned the "baked after Pesach" stickers are merely an indication that the product is fresh. -- 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 Mon May 2 12:21:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:21:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> <57279663.5050102@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727A8CE.4040308@zahav.net.il> From: Eli Turkel via Areivim > The following is probably mostly for Israel MO and based on observations > and not statistics > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article by > a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see below) may apply). The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev Shabbat: 1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). 2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza 3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is practiced). So what is the difference in this case? Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? On 5/2/2016 8:03 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how > silly you think their reason. Of course you can't. However, community leaders can decide what message to transmit. I heard Rav Amar state in the strongest terms that there is no benefit to buying chameitz products from a non-Jew (instead of from a Jew who sold his chameitz). He also discouraged looking for the "baked after Pesach" label. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:05:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:05:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! -- 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 Mon May 2 11:21:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279A8F.5020203@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 02:24 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus >> standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >> would-be guest"? > In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this > chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they > didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate > their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at > least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are > (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" > mindset). 1. There's a lot more to standards, especially on Pesach, than which hechsherim one trusts. You might trust more hechsherim than your relatives do, but not use some product from *any* hechsher that they do use, or have some practise at home that they don't. 2. If you are indeed sure that you are not more machmir than them, then the custom of not mixing would not apply in that specific case. The minhag is subject to the guest's discretion, not the host's; all it demands of the hosts is not to take offence. -- 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 Mon May 2 11:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 04:58:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R'MG Rabi has incorrectly assumed that I heard or similar, the words I QUOTED from Mori VRabbi Rav Hershel Schachter. As a rule when I write that it is a quote, it is a quote. I am an academic. In fact, it was an email directly to me verbatim, which I received after Pesach from Mori VRabbi. Again, it is wrong to make suppositions. I did not provide any name in my question to him as that is entirely irrelevant. Regarding your substantive question for the exact sources etc I will ask, however, he is a very busy person effectively also the lone Senior Posek for OU (has Rav Belsky a'h been replaced?) and RIETS as well as his daily shiurim at RIETS and being Rosh Yeshiva and Kollel etc and you will appreciate that his answer to the query may not be immediate. Dr Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 13:07:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:07:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727B36A.7000303@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 03:22 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > On May 3, 2016 4:05 AM, "Zev Sero" > wrote: >> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: >>> Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation >> The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! > Correct, it's predicated upon factually incorrect information However on being challenged he refused to back this claim up. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 14:41:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:41:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can > indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. Zvi Lampel (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) [The attached PDF was identical to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/51283 -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 15:43:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 00:43:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: RAM mentioned that: > last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining > the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and > explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on > Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an > expression of stepping." ... and asked: > How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 > years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? As you yourself wrote earlier in that post, the French call the holiday paques (with an accent circonflexe on the a, but that renders badly on Avodah). It is derived from the Latin, like the Spanish pascua, too. I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke of genius that serves its purpose well. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 22:27:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 01:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: <64eee8.a68b9f3.445990cc@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach >....Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. ... [--RAM] And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL >>>>>> You don't inspect the host's kitchen because you don't eat in his house! That's the point! Chassidim and others have this minhag of "not mishing" on Pesach --" not mixing" our meals with other families. This custom of not eating at other people's houses on Pesach has its source in this, precisely: the desire not to insult anyone, not to embarrass anyone and not to hurt anyone's feelings on this of all holidays, the one holiday when we are all more careful than usual about what we will and will not eat. The "unfriendly" chassidishe minhag has a very friendly corollary, at least in chutz la'aretz where we have two days of yom tov: On the last day of Pesach we /davka/ go out to eat or invite others to our homes and make a point of "mishing." If you don't have anyone over for a meal at least you go out visiting other people's homes in the afternoon, and make a point of eating something there. It's sort of like a sukka hop, you try to visit a few different homes and also host a few different people in your home. At least this was the minhag in my family growing up and among the people I knew in my youth. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 23:35:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >>Two bundles of goods >>may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. >>So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God >>really want that? [--RDR] Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such natural evils. Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Properly speaking "evil" only refers to something that has a moral dimension. The question of "Why does G-d allow evil?" has an obvious answer -- to allow scope for bechira, for free will. That doesn't fully answer the question, of course. We see many cases where He thwarts the nefarious plots of our enemies, which leaves us with aching questions in those cases when He seemingly stands by and does /not/ thwart their plots -- the Holocaust being the most wrenching example. There are a lot of answers but perhaps none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be called evil at all (unless you want to impute evil motives to the Borei c'v!). Rather, here the question is "Why is there suffering in the world?" This is a different question from the question of why does He allow evil people to commit evil deeds. Again there are many different answers, some of which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as well as Divine reasons we can't think of. "Evil" and "suffering" can overlap, as when evil people cause other people to suffer, but they are still two different categories. BTW the idea that a benevolent G-d "couldn't" or "wouldn't" do this or that is an arrogant and ignorant idea, the product of puny human minds. And compared to our Creator, even the most brilliant human mind is puny. Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I did ask Him to take them away. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 04:10:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: I wrote: > This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of > the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? > > Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of > the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? #1) In the article cited, much was made of an incident when Rava went to visit Rav Nachman, who was Rava's rebbe, and was thus presumably at least as strict as Rava. (See the article for more information, and for various ways of understanding that gemara.) #2) I, personally, am not very knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of this practice, such as who follows it, or to what extent they follow it. That's whay I can't answer your question by pointing to people who won't even eat in their parents' homes; I have no idea whether or not this practice really goes that far. HOWEVER, I do presume that the author of the article is familiar with these things, and near the beginning of the article, he writes: > perhaps the most intriguing of Pesach stringencies is the widespread > minhag not to eat anyone else's food during the Pesach holiday, even > if the other person keeps their chumros. It seems from this that Rabbi Reiss *is* aware of people who avoid eating other food, even when they do know that their standards have not been otherwise lessened. There can be many ways of knowing this, without "make[ing] an inspection of the host's kitchen and review[ing] all of the products he uses ... insulting to the host", such as when they are close family members, or friends, and/or the host actually invites the guest to examine his products and practices. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 06:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:43:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah Message-ID: The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon are factually correct? Those I have communicated with seem to be incapable or unwilling. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:20:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:43:08PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, : anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon : are factually correct? Which fact are you not sure of: 1- That until a couple of decades before the teshuvah people did not count kneading time toward the kedei hilukh mil, and then people (at least around Easter Europe) did? 2- That rushing the kneading because it now has to fit within the mil along with baking time would increase the chance that there was unkneaded flour on or in the matzah? 3- That the Baal haTanya is brighter than you, and should be second-guessed with care? Even if someone known to be brilliant makes a mistake, you know it's not likely to be a trivial one. 4- Or, the original topic.... That I would find it unlikely that RMF would consider a minhag endorsed by the SA haRav should be dropped without very strong motive? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:28:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:28:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products; e.g, my wife makes mayonnaise for Pesach, although I no longer churn butter, as he did -- yeridas hadoros): I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.. I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no alternative. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:40:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503144014.GA18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:43:39AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also : be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that : gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the : meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke : of genius that serves its purpose well. Much of what gets called "chassidishe Torah" is similar -- it's not a real answer to the question posed, but it is real Torah. Presented in a way that makes a roshem on a listener. As for etymologies, I think there is also a gray area. "Yarmulka" is a term in a number of Slavic languages for whatever cap the locals wore. But if no one had created the folk etymology of "yarei Malka", would the term have become as widespread or as long-lived as it did? Historically, the name Shneiur is from Signor or perhaps Spanish Sen~or, or most likely the original Latin "Senior", which means "Zaqein", with all the implications of sagicity. But I think more Shneiurs today are named for the shnei or of Shabbos licht. Especially since that's why R Aharon and Rn Rivqah Chanah Perel Kotler chose the name for their son, born Friday evening. (BTW, RSK was a dapper looking man in his Chevron days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Kotler#/media/File:Rabbi_Shneur_Kotler.jpg Found it while looking to confirm the story about when he was born.) OTOH, Marche-shvan vs "Mar Cheshvan" has halachic import, and one cannot let the folk etymology cause people to write the wrong thing on a gett; nor to forget that the month names were from galus Bavel, and not related to the Hebrew word "mar". But in general, folk etymologies too have causitive power. (It's just that in my last example, I think we need to resist it.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:09:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:09:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> References: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160503150952.GB18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:38AM -0400, Rn Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without : Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents : for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. : : But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects : and other such natural evils. : I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Yes, but fixing my misspeech doesn't change my point. To apply the correction: Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. : none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that : we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. Does that necessarily mean we cannot know His Goals either, or only how they play out in practice? IOW, perhaps we can conclude that HYashem wants a world of hatavah, including being meitiv us with the joy of being able to be meitivim ourselves, without knowing why that means He would choose providing Tov in one case and why He left us on our own in another. : The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be : called evil at all... True, but if we correct my language, then the question too needs correction: How is the existence of *suffering* consistent with the Existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent G-d? : which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of : the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as : well as Divine reasons we can't think of. Including free will. For all I know, Hashem lets certain diseases foster because He Wants to give us the opportunity to cure them. That does not address His Choice of victims, though. I suggested four answers to theodicy, keneged arba banim: The chakham doesn't really answer it, he instead asks "How does Hashem want me to respond?" The rasha gets yisurim as punishment. In the Haggadah we tell him that its not the tragedy that is leading him to rejecting G-d its his rejection of G-d that led him to the tragedy. The tam gets yisurim shel ahavah. He didn't do anything wrong, but he is shaken out of the rut that keeps him from trying to be a chakham. And the she'eino yodea' lish'ol gets the life he does because, well, there are times where the thing we want is a greater nisayon, than the situation we find tragic. And if we are not up to the challenge, if its a test that we couldn't pass, G-d doesn't make us face it. I say it better and with more backing at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pesach-5761-the-four-sons-confront-tragedy But my point in my earlier post wasn't whether or not theodicy is answeable, but that the issue of theodicy was simply ignored by the philosophy professor giving the online course I pointed to. Which, in turn, was why I thought that a translation of something R Sherky said to university students (repeated from Twitter) requires more examiunation of the original. To repeat (since I find this topic more useful than trying to answer tzadiq vera lo): : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? "Can't find"? This professor of philosophy missed a huge theological topic. My guess is that "lo nimtza" was translated overly literally and RYS was replying to questioned for which no answer exists. And yes, someone should be intellectually honest enough to give up his religion if it really were disproven. An impossible hypothetical (we know a Torah-follower's religion won't ever really be disproven, beyond minor misunderstood peratim); so not very meaningful, but not something it would shock me to hear a rav say. : Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. : But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, : a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, : and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I : really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained : from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I : did ask Him to take them away. I said something similar recently about "lir'os es atzmo ke'ilu hu yatza miMitzrayim" . I wrote about how the RBSO put into process even before I was born events that caused my lymphoma to be diagnosed while still in stage 1, BH and ba"h. A rare form of lymphoma that (as of 2010) had only afflicted two other people, both rescue workers who helped look for their comrade's remains in the weeks after 9/11. Here's just the post-script: To be intellectually honest: The story loses some of its impact if you think about Office Ryan and Firefighter Endicott's families, who lost their love ones specifically because they were determined to give other rescue workers' families the closure of being able to make a funeral. On 9/11 itself, for every story retold of someone who was spared being there because they were out doing some mitzvah is a story of someone who seems no less deserving who was killed in the attack. Every life has its own story. I cannot know G-d's calculus in my own, never mind in others'. But the mystery of tzadiq vera lo (why the righteous suffer) doesn't free me from feeling grateful for the good in my life (hakaras hatov) and feeling thankful to the ones -- or in this case the One -- who provide it (hoda'ah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503151406.GC18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:28:43PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which : had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products... : I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree : of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted : practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no : alternative. Which is the only way the minhag could be non-offensive. I am reminded of the rav who establishes a policy not to eat in any mispallel's home, so that no one is offended by their rabbi having to judge their home's kashrus as insufficient. Still, I think it would be elegant if people who have the minhag of misht zikh nisht adopt the minhag of Maimouna. We might not be able to eat together on Pesach, but let's all share the simchas Isru Chag! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 10:08:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160503170842.GD18204@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:46:56PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law : of the excluded middle. : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle However, not only does RYBS's discussion of bein hashemashos really rely on defying the law of contradiction by saying "both" rather than the excluded middle's "something in between", so does his invocation of "almanas isa" and "isa lashon safeiq hu" -- safeiq is a dough. For that matter, the same could be said of erev (although RYBS didn't) -- an irbuvia of day and night. So I think that RYBS actually meant that halakhah had no law of contradiction. Which may be a consequence of allowing middle values between yes and no, I haven't found it spelled out anywhere. BTW, the notion that a tenai needs to be said in both positive and negative is also relevant, as only saying "I promise to do X if Y" is insufficient if Y could be both true and false or somewhere between true and false -- in those cases, whether or not I commit to doing X is ambiguous. Eg "I promise to do X if the next person to enter the room is tall" would lead to a she'eilah if the person walking in is a 5'11" American man (where Google the average is 5'10"). "Tall" is a non-boolean predicate -- a person could be somewhat tall, and not just because it's a matter of opinion, but between there is a gray area about the bottom of the set. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:19:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 01:19:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I am seeking the facts that the Teshuvah employs to support a Halachic ruling that Gebrochts is Assur. so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - 1] until a couple of decades beforehand kneading time was not included in the kedei hilukh mil time 2] this reduced production time created a credible risk of flour remaining in the baked Matzah? I am nowhere near the lofty heights of the BaAl HaTanya. But I am commanded, as is all of BNY, to learn and question and as R Ch Voloshiner says [Paskens?] we are not permitted to accept a ruling or a Peshat if there are questions that remain unanswered. It seems that we are having a dispute about RMF arguing with a Minhag endorsed by the SA HaRav. I propose that since Gebrochts is without Halachic foundation, it does not require Hatarah. Others think this is impossible since the SH HaRav endorses Gebrochts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:55:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:55:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160503185522.GA28828@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:19:27AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 . (Same as when we had this same conversation 3 years ago.) Twenty years is mentioned on 476, the paragraph that beging "Ve'af" -- "...ad shemiqarov zeh esrim shanah o yotseir, nishpatah zehirus zu beYisrael qedoshim, lemaheir me'od me'od belishah..." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 20:12:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5728E9FB.8010609@zahav.net.il> A close friend told me that he his uncle (and family) would come to his father's home for seder (in Poland before the war), bring his own food and table cloth, and by doing this was considered to be meiqil. Ben On 5/3/2016 4:28 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on > Pesach, unless there was no alternative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 09:42:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jonathan Traum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> Message-ID: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> > Lisa Liel wrote: >>> According to >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >>> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's >> berakhah >> of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw >> from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? I can't say with any authority what was in Yaakov Avinu's thoughts there, but lion imagery in the ancient world certainly does seem to predate him. On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > ... > But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's > question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves > are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The king of the wild animals is the lion..." Jonathan Traum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:12:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah Message-ID: In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on the other. Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from joining together for a meal 2) RSZA always took simchat shabbat/yomtov into account in his piskei halacha. A rabbi who is machmir not to allow using a shabbat elevator may be forcing someone who lives on the 30th floor to spend every shabbat without a minyan and without any company and certainly without oneh shabbat. RSZA was an advocate of tzomet because he felt it important to help especially the disadvantaged. Thus, he felt it important to invent a wheelchair good for invalids that can be used on shabbat 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also important even when it relies on DNA evidence. This is just a sampling of many areas where some poskim try and be conservative while RMA insists that just blindly doing the old thing is not necessarily the conservative or macmir way. His favorite analogy is a group of people who live in the tropics and wear swimwear. Because of circumstances they move to a colder area. There now arises a dispute should they continue to wear swimwear because thats what their ancestors wore or do they change to warmer clothing. The change is also meant to be conservative: the ancestors wore clothing that matched the climate and so they should wear clothing that match the clothing. The reformists change clothing simply because they dont care what the ancestors wore -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 13:15:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 16:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> Message-ID: <572906F0.5020105@sero.name> On 05/03/2016 12:42 PM, Jonathan Traum via Avodah wrote: > On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> >But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's >> >question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves >> >are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? > ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The > king of the wild animals is the lion..." Yes, it does now. As the result of this discussion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 14:45:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:45:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <000801d1a585$16ecdbf0$44c693d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RET wrote > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article > by a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel And RBW replied: >RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see >below) may apply). >The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev >Shabbat: >1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). >2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza >3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. >Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. >Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is >practiced). So what is the difference in this case? >Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? Of course, this is just a reiteration of the discussion we had last year - here is my post. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n069.shtml#10 The positions cited here appear to be taken directly from the Rav Poelim. See the citation there regarding the issur of handling food on fast days. >Ben Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 06:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos Message-ID: RBen Waxman cited the following: "This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issue." Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 05:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:04:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] women cutting hair in the omer Message-ID: I just saw that ROY paskens that women are allowed to cut their cut during the sefirah. Does anyone know if this is widely accepted? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 14:43:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:43:42 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Avoid situations that embarrass In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline. A story that displays a slightly different perspective - the visitor who insisted on drinking his tea in the host's Succah when the host who was not enjoying the best of health was entertaining the guest in his house. The host accompanied his guest explaining to the now uncomfortable guest, I am exempt from the mitzvah of Succah but obligated in the mitzvah of Hachnossas Orchim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 17:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160505004747.GB22983@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:34:09PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The : Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish : Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside : world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to : others subunits (e.g. ethnic). I am curious to see that article, because I would have thought the causality was the reverse. The Rama knew of an Ashkenazi mesorah that had numerous differences with Sepharadi pesaq since well before the SA. It was on that basis thyat he was able to categorize the SA as "their" rulings. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 11th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 strict justice? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 04:50:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:50:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would > be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in > the universe at all. > > But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. > Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence not a real good at all. But suppose we leave the world of mussar, where my goal is to grow spiritually by becoming a better person, and improving the relationship between myself and Hashem. Instead, let's focus on getting more social. It's not that I want to improve myself, but that I want to do things that other people will benefit and get pleasure from. In a world where people are busy interacting, but the laws of nature prohibit Nazis, the problem is not that good doesn't *exist*. The problem is that good isn't recognized or appreciated. Everyone is always doing nice things to everyone else, so much so that the beneficiaries don't notice it. Not because they are ungrateful, but because they literally don't notice it -- they have nothing to compare it to. This is how the world runs. What else might one expect? And THAT's why there is "no real good in the universe at all." Ad caan, RMB's reisha. But this only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Evil -- or at least the potential for it -- is necessary so that we can appreciate the good. What about congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering? My first reaction is to give the same answer as above: No one will appreciate good health unless bad health is a possibility. And then I feel ashamed of my insensitivity, my hardheartedness, my callousness. How can I not cry for the babies struggling in pain, just so I can score some points in this discussion? But, truth be told, that insensitivity reared its head many paragraphs ago, when we first contemplated "a world without Nazis". Are the victims of "naturally caused suffering" entitled to more consideration than the victims of Nazi-caused suffering? I don't think so. My heart goes out to both of them, to all of them, and I feel guilty, wondering about where my heart is when I thank G-d for the good He has given me. I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 20:02:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 05:02:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> On 5/3/2016 8:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on > the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on > the other. > > Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) > > 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be > machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without > kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from > simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from > joining together for a meal. If the parents of a Sefardi son in law > can provide him with halaq meat 52 weeks out of a year, he can deal > with their rice issue one week a year. I know that I sound like a broken record but . . . We have a long history of chumrot in kashrut and a long history of dealing with them. Kintiyot can be dealth with, halachakly and culinarily, just like almost all of these issues. Having an in law with food allergies is going to present much more of a challenge to a host than having an in law who doesn't eat rice. > > > 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most > halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is > overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity > might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone > agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA > points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as > inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also > important even when it relies on DNA evidence. > For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:08:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:08:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: yom hazikaron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the importance of standing during the siren on yom hazikaron by Rav Stav (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=4174 on aveilut vs chol hamoed during sefira by Rav Cherlow (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=5629 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:20:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 18:20:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572B72D1.2030303@zahav.net.il> Rav Tawil was basing himself on a psak given by Rav Ovadia Yosef, tz"l, which is summarized here: http://halachayomit.co.il/he/Default.aspx?HalachaID=3938 KT Ben On 5/4/2016 3:26 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > ? ? ? Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet > repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, > even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would > seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. > ? > EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:15:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:15:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben _____________________________________________ IMHO DNA is a real Pandora's box which it seems that poskim are taking an approach that to an outsider might be viewed as pragmatic (vs intellectually mandated) by accepting it as a secondary sirgn but not primary so as to specifically not get into the parentage issue. What will happen when everyone's dna/genetic map is available feom a simple stick test? 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:24:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:24:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1255?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=96_=EE=F1=E5?= =?windows-1255?b?+OQg4fnh5fIg4Of4IPTx5w==?= Message-ID: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160505154013.GF22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:50:01AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change : anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics : categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind : to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. I am not in your target audience, as I am happy with my current answer and thus probably too closed minded on this question to be influenced, but... : RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he : free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then : whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not : the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence : not a real good at all... Not my intent. Let me explain what I was trying to say from a different direction. What makes free will possible? The fact that we can think about thinking. Bechira chofshi and being aware of one's own thoughts and feelings (or a subset of them) go hand-in-hand. When we think about and make decisions based on that metacognizent "inputs" we are able to change how we think and truly exercise BC. I think this underlize REED's concept of a nequdas habechirah. It is only at the "battlefront" between two warring desires/drives that BC comes into play because it is only there that the decision happens slow even to occur consciously. You might recall that when we discussed tza'ar baalei chaim (in at least 2 iterations), I suggested that while animals feel pain, they have no "I" about which they could think "I am in pain". Pain, but without a critical element that turns it into true suffering. I gave a neurological argument -- animals lack the part of prefrontal cortext we use to do metacognizance, so why assume they can? Maybe when it comes to animals, the Behaviorists are right. But I also made a hashkafic argument. If a thinking being could be aware of the thinking itself, and think about thinking, it would have free will. Since only people have BC, which in the opinion of many (including the Meshekh Chokhmah) is that very tzelem E-lokim, they can't be self-aware of their thought. Pain as a stimulus away from something, but not "Oy am I in pain!" of true suffering on a human level. So I was making a philosophical point about the goodness. Not that it lacks worth of purpose, but the ability to enjoy good and the ability to make decisions go hand-in-hand. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:48:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:48:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160505154808.GG22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:02:38AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be : declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth : it? Mamzeirus is not a good example for a general discussion of chumeros. Kivan denitma nitma. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that we are to ignore most sefeiqos -- safeiq mamzer in a yichus-ly kosher community, or a mamzer in a safeiq community. (See for a nice discussion.) I think it would be assur to check mamzeirus using DNA, except in those few cases where we otherwise are chosheish for the safeiq anyway, like a shetuqi or asufi. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim Message-ID: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> H/T Mosaic Magazine See : Bible Odyssey Who Were the Sadducees? by Michael L. Satlow ... The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq, the name of the high priest at the time of King David (1Kings 1:39). Later sources also link the Sadducees to the priesthood (for example, Acts 4:1). However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. In the uproar that ensued, a Sadducee convinced Hyrcanus to abandon the Pharisees for the Sadducees. Whether true or not, this story might point to the Sadducees' origin as a political party allied with the Hasmoneans. Josephus tantalizingly mentions that the Sadducees ascribe authority to Scripture, not to the ancestral traditions handed down by the Pharisees: ... I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion i a dichotomy. Also, what kind of news is in that the Chashmonaim were in league with the Tzeduqim? Regardless of Josephus's story, why wouldn'tthe family that held the power of both Kohein Gadol and Melekh want to deprecate any form of Judaism that would make them share power with the rabbinate? Can the more historically informed please comment if this post is a non-story (which finding it in Mosaic Magazine led me to doubt) or what the chiddush is here? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:55:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:55:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=E2=80=93_=D7=9E?= =?utf-8?b?16HXldeo15Qg15HXqdeR15XXoiDXkNeX16gg16TXodeX?= In-Reply-To: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> References: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <572B7B0D.3050906@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 10:24 AM, Lawrence Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see > http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e 1) Every Ashkenazi siddur says that in summer we say vesein brocho and (in places where it's customary) morid hatol, and in winter we say tal umotor and mashiv horuach. Since we are now saying the former, it is summer, and wishing each other a good summer is therefore appropriate. 2) There is no pressure on anyone to bake a shlissel challah. The blogger is engaging in a fantasy so he can rant about it. Rather, every year we are subjected to ranting from opponents of this custom who can't bear the thought that some people do have it. The blogger has his mesorah, and good on him for adhering to it, but it is irrelevant to the vast majority of us who do not share it. Those who don't have this particular custom of are free not to do it, and nobody will denounce them for it; but they must have the same respect for those who do it, whether because their ancestors did it as far back as anyone knows, or because they heard about it last week and decided it sounded like a nice thing to do. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 10:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:19:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572B80AB.3050808@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 12:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. He was not accused of being a mamzer but a chalal, because his mother had once been kidnapped and was thus unfit to be married a kohen. We don't need to go to Josephus for this story, it's a braisa in Kiddushin 66a. > I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually > led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion > is a dichotomy. The article makes the same point: "In antiquity, there was no neat division between politics and religion". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 12:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:41:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <520b4de4-831a-8f00-6b0d-1cd935504656@starways.net> On 5/5/2016 7:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > See : ... > by Michael L. Satlow ... > ... > The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the > Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term > Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq... The myth that the Tzedukim got their name from Tzadok the Kohen Gadol has zero basis to it. Except maybe the quote from Acts, which has no weight. The origin of the Tzedukim appears in Avot d'Rabbi Natan, where we find that the eponymous Tzadok was one of the talmidim of Antigonus Ish Socho. > However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not > as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus > mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high > priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer]... Also, despite Josephus's claims, the accusation wasn't that he was a mamzer; it was that he was a chalal. The article is a non-story. Lisa [To be fair without bothering to post a full reply for something off-topic: The original had a word I wasn't comfortable repeating on-list, starts with a "b", so I assumed the usual back-translation to the Hebrew. I have no idea what Josephus actually wrote, nor do I expect a Xian to bother explaining chalal rather than use a general term for what used to be called an "illegitimate" child. So I don't know if it's Josephus's claims that's off or a miscommunication caused by my trying to be overly frummy. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:53:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know how you can say that. Admittedly, the Creator apparently wanted a world in which there are both Nazis /and/ birth defects, since that's the world He created. But there is a HUGE difference between the two -- between the pain caused by evil people through their own free will, and the suffering that occurs as the result of disease and other natural causes. One thought experiment will illustrate the difference. Imagine a mother whose child dies as the result of a birth defect. Let's even say the child dies after a period of pain and suffering. Now imagine another mother whose child dies because a Nazi snatched the child from her arms and killed the child in some sadistic way, in front of the mother's eyes. Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:29:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 06:29:53 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? or within it? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:22:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:22:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when > there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. > Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF > Every case is judged on its own. I was just an eid to a get of the sort, where certain kullot in the berurei sheimot were accepted because it was such a kind of get lechumra. In other situations, we may be quicker to allow a kitvu uttenu for a civil marriage divorce. As I said, every case is judged on its own. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:42:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:42:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrot Message-ID: In light of the comments of Rabbi Folger and others let me restate my opinion of chumrot. There are several levels of chumrot and kulot 1) The chumrah is personal and doesn't affect anyone else - perfectly OK but one shouldn't gloat or look down on those who don't accept the chumra 2) At the other extreme are things like monetary manners where every chumra for one side is a kula for the other side 3) For things in between one has to compare the chumra to the "price" being paid So for kitniyot - the prohibition is relatively mild but OTOH doing without the specific kitniyot is not a major deal either (in most cases) I personally get annoyed at husbands that won't carry (or push the carriage) even with an eruv but the wife does everything. I am not sure how much the women really volunteer. In any case the hardship is relatively mild (again in most cases) The harder cases are where the prohibition is more severe but the effects are more severe Examples from before include shabbat problems that might prevent one from leaving home every shabbat and ruining on a long term basis oneg shabbat. As Rabbi Folger points out various cases of gittin. Also cases involving DNA or other forms of controversial evidence. The main point R Avraham was making is that rabbis who take a "conservative: stance are not always being machmir since the effect on others may be severe. At times the more innovative approach may be the real conservative way. i.e. it saves the principle of the halacha rather than just some formality which is no longer relevant. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 07:59:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:59:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah Message-ID: RET wrote: > 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt > that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out > that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when > they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects > many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. Actually, that simply doesn't reflect the most widespread position on civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 05:34:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:34:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula Message-ID: <> Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one can't accept it in many other cases -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:14:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:14:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of > divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the > key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. > Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single > case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to > avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a > proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. > -- > Arie Folger, >> > chumrot that don't have side effects are fine. As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 16:29:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Schlissel Challah Message-ID: <20160506232927.GA27784@aishdas.org> Since everyone has to have a schlissel chalah post... Really I think it is about sources of yeast right after Pesach. There was no starter dough, so people would use beer foam. Beer foam yeast is too acrive for good dough. Fortunately, iron slows down yeast action. A key is a small convenient piece of iron to throw into the mix. But it is common for minhagim to be born from inventing reasons for things people already do. In this case... It relates to the key of rain and finances, described in Taanis 2, one of the three (or two of the four) keys that Hashem never delegates. If so, it is a reminder just as the wheat comes in, and. in the lands Ashkenazim were living in too. (The fresh grass which becomes a milk abundance just on time for Shavuos and Wittesmontag.) A reminder from Whom the spring wealth comes. And to thank Him accordingly, rather than to take credit. If so, ironically (for the naysayers), the custom is all about how wealth comes directly from G-d, not via angels, spiritual mechanisms, or tricks. Do you have a problem with dipping an apple in honey and other such simanei milsa of Rosh haShanah? Those too are symbols. The problem isn't with schlissel chalah. If people observed the custom for the kinds of reasons listed in this post, there would be nothing to object to. The problem I have is that it seems to have caught on beyond the original community because of people having magical thinking, trying to get HQBH to give them their wealth through segulah instead of (rather as inspiration for) the hard and long work of earning reward for being a better Jew. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 13th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 necessary for a good relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 14:26:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 00:26:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? Message-ID: I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). Shavua Tov, Hodesh Tov! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 19:49:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572EA93A.7030509@sero.name> On 05/07/2016 05:26 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). I am looking at a block of Tenuva salted butter, which bears the mehadrin hechsher of Tenuva's own rabbi, R Weitman, and also the hechsherim of the OU and Chug Chasam Sofer. I assume Chug Chasam Sofer is a mehadrin-only hechsher. Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk. It's also available in 10g and 200g with the mehadrin hechsher, and also in 10g and 100g with the hechsher of Badatz Edah Hacharedit. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=581 Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=582 However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to have this problem. http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/salted-butter http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/butter -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 21:35:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 07:35:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages > with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk... > > Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and > only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk... > > However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to > have this problem.... Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 22:00:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 01:00:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> On 05/08/2016 12:35 AM, Simon Montagu wrote: > > Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? Well, I don't see how it can be a halachic issue, since they do sell it with the mehadrin hechsher in the USA, to consumers whose kashrut standards are presumably the same those of Israeli mehadrin consumers. Nor, given the size and internal diversity of the Israeli mehadrin market, and its overlap with the USA one, can it plausibly be attributed to a cultural difference. What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available in 100g packs, in either country. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 8 20:36:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 06:36:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> Message-ID: <87b8dde5-91ed-0b4e-3d8f-268d85c4c13f@starways.net> On 5/8/2016 8:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available > in 100g packs, in either country. > The idea of salted butter was originally to be able to sell the butter longer. If the butter has gone off (rancid) a little, salting it hides that. So a lot of people refuse to buy salted butter, figuring that if it's unsalted, they *know* whether it's good or not, and they can always salt it themselves if they want. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 04:36:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:36:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RavSharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< ... Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. >>> The difference that I see, is that in one case the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards Hashem, and in the second case, the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards both Hashem and the Nazi. But as I understand this conversation, we are discussing theodicy, which is the question of "How can a good God allow such a thing to happen?" And in that regard I see no difference between the two cases. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 10:37:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160509173704.GA27325@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 05:41:13PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger :> The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can :> indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. : : I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... : where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in : fact it implies the opposite Then why would you think tht was the reference? Pesach 30 is where he discusses zeh le'umas zeh, so mybe they're talking about the implied lack of a law of contradiction? (Ie that creation comes in paradoxical pairs.) YOu are asking for a source for something I have been repeating since before its appearance in Avodah vol 1, something I learne from R' Aryeh Kaplan. Sources, even my notebook from those days, are not at hand. But I'm working on it -- al titya'esh. Actually, I am on the hunt for where I saw the point in seifer haHigayon. The Ramchal defined higayon as a tool the seikhel was given. I am just looking for where I found it explicit that logic was created for people. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 15:52:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi writes: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface > which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." > > May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? > > Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour > WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the kneading specifically. Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:02:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160510010206.GA9905@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 6:52pm EDT, R Akiva Miller: : I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then : flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, : I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the : kneading specifically. : Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? : I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 2:55pm EDT, I wrote: > Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos > Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 > . -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57313304.90006@sero.name> On 05/09/2016 06:52 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Teshuvah #6, in the Shu"t at the back of volume 6. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=486 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=487 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 20:09:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:09:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: Many thanks to R' Zev Sero and R' Micha Berger for sending me links to the HebrewBooks.org edition, and at almost the same instant. R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a > little flour on their surface which is a consequence > of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." I responded: > I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in > the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. > If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the > general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the > kneading specifically. I now suspect that the situation was a bit different than I had imagined. I would like to suggest that the matzos described by the Alter Rebbe had plain flour through and through, as a result of the dough being dry and hard, and difficult to knead, exactly as described. But the Rebbe complained only about the flour on the outside, and I suspect that this is because it presents a bigger halachic problem than the flour on the inside. I first got this feeling in the paragraph "V'hinei eineinu", though I can't point to any specific words where he might have said this. But in the paragraph "V'af d'haMagen Avraham", he is machmir on one who crumbles his matza into the soup, but he is meikil for one who puts matza balls into the soup. What I translated as "matza balls" are, more precisely in his words, "ground matza that they make into rounds (agulim)", and the room for leniency is because it can be judged to be a ta'aroves. I'm going into some detail here, because he is NOT talking about crumbling some matza into a dry bowl, which would contain a mixture of matza meal and flour, and the flour would lose its identity to the matza meal before it ever got wet. No, that's not what he is talking about. He makes explicit reference to these balls which were made previously, and were added to the soup afterward, I am at a loss to explain the advantage of these matza balls over one who crumbles his matza directly into the soup. The only advantage I see is that one who crumbles the matza into his soup is making chometz personally, whereas in the other case the chometz was made in the kitchen when the matza balls were fashioned. (Footnote 45 there might be saying something similar.) Be that as it may, it leads me to a very wild guess that when the dough is not kneaded well, it will have flour on the inside, and although one might think that this flour is subject to chimutz, the truth is that there is some room for leniency because that flour is batel to the matza itself. However, this leniency applies only to the flour inside the matza, and not to the flour on the outer surface of the matza. Again, this paragraph is only a wild guess that I offer to the group. (On a side point, I'd like to ask about the modern "hard (kasheh)" dough that the Alter Rebbe described. Why was it hard? I can understand spending less time kneading it so that it can be rushed into the oven, but the Rebbe seems to feel that the consistency of the dough changed too. Why would anyone think that using less water is a good idea? Kneading a bread dough is hard work, and it seems like common sense to me that if we want to knead it well, you'd use *more* water, not less. Does extra water accelerate the chimutz, independently of the temperature of that water?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 03:50:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:50:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach?" The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz that was sold to a goy in Israel because none of the hechsherim (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one is checking that it is true. See for example http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X9_D8LFI5O8/UWEoF_JIlgI/AAAAAAAAAc4/XDKyPFsMN7Q/s1600/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%94+%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8+%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.jpg Some people rely on checking product codes which tells them when the product was made. However, this is not that useful. All it says is that the product was made after Pesach. However, every Chometz product has chometz ingredients in it (at least flour which is most probably chometz because it was washed) and the consumer has no way of knowing when the chometz ingredients were made and who owned over them over Pesach. For example even if you only buy cookies that were made after Pesach you have no idea what flour was used. It is very possible/probable that the flour used to make the cookies was chometz and was sold for Pesach. Som people only eat things that were made with flour that was fround after Pesach. However there a problem with this as well. Flour in Israel is very low in gluten and therefore won't rise well unless gluten is added. All bakeries add gluten to the flour in all baked goods. There is no gluten produced in Israel, it is all imported mostly from Germany, France, and China. Gluten by definition is chamtez gamur . Because it needs to be imported gluten must be SOLD to a Goy over Pessach; unless the bakeries want to close shop for a few weeks waiting for a new shipment. Since they start making bread literally a few hours after Pesach is over they must be using gluten that they sold to a goy. Therefore, even if the bread says baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach, the gluten was most definitely sold and therefore you are relying on the sale to a goy. In other words they are pulling the wool over your eyes. They say that it was baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach but conveniently leave out the bit about gluten that was sold. (source http://www.bhol.co.il/9196/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.html ) In short, this is a chumra that makes people feel frum but has no basis in halacha and is in fact not really possible to keep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 04:13:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:13:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Message-ID: R' Elazar Teitz wrote: "I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.." On the other hand there is a famous story (printed in the Brisker Haggada and in HaRav MiBrisk) about the Brisker Rav visiting R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach in Vilna in 1941. The Brisker Rav thought that the sugar in Vilna had Kitniyos mixed in and therefore did not use it on Pesach. However, when the Brisker Rav visited R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach, R' Chaim Ozer served him tea with sugar which the Brisker Rav accepted and drank. Afterwards, someone (his son?) asked him why did he drink the tea with the sugar if there was a chashash of kitniyos in the sugar? He answered that not eating kitniyos is a minhag but being mevaze a talmid chacham is an issur d'oraysa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 08:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:52:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573203A1.3050503@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz > that was sold to a goy in Israel//because none of the hechsherim > (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) > hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when > things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the > manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one > is checking that it is true. Since it's only a chumra, why not just trust the manufacturer? Most manufacturers are honest, and if you happen to come across one who isn't you haven't really lost anything. In any case, while there are of course those who look for the "baked after Pesach" label for kashrus reasons, I assume that *most* people who look for this label do so as a guarantee of freshness. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 12:20:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 22:20:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:35:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:35:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f382b3d9eba7690e3482efc18d4e958@aishdas.org> On 2016-05-10 5:31 pm, H Lampel wrote: > Any luck with this? > > Zvi > On 5/2/2016 5:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. > > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. > > Zvi Lampel > (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) The truth is, this machloqes is something I was repeating since R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l was alive. (I mention it in Avodah vol. 1.) And RAK's presentation on logic that made it to print (years before my NCSY days) does not mention the Ramchal's side. Well, it does mention Derekh Hashem 1:1:5 but in the context of one of the paradoxes he's trying to resolve, not about allowing for paradoxes. So I'm trying to dig up an old memory of his stated source. I was thinking of a few places in sefer haHigayon and Derekh Tevunos, which I am still looking for. The Ramchal describes higayon and tevunah as tools Hashem created for a sekhel to use. I thought it was the haqdamah, but since not... The Maharal's model of machloqesin (on Avos 5:17) allows for paradoxes to result when we try to map the supernal Emes to olam hazeh. This point is not THAT relevant, but it's about machloqesin (perhaps only a subset, see end of Be'er 7 which says not every machloqes is eilu va'eilu), and I am writing to the Baal haDynamics. Anyway, it's not really a statement about logic, any more than saying that two shadows of a 3D object can differ and yet both be real shadows. (BTW, the copy of Dynamics in the beis medrash at Yeshiva of Greater Washington is well-worn and due for replacement or rebinding. I was just in the neighborhood for Grandparents' Day at my grandchildren's school.) I did post on-list (to appear in the next digest) that the nearest _pesach _30 gets to denying logic is that "zeh le'umas zeh" denies the law of contradiction. Which doesn't mean Hashem is above logic; it could just mean Hashem's logic isn't the classical one. Which I pointed out in a few halachic examples -- safeiq lashon isah hu appears to mean that a doubt is a coexistence of conflicting states, the need for a tenai to be in both positive and negative, etc... _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 Tue May 10 13:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:31:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57324535.7050501@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 03:20 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) They are discussing the buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), obviously, not the bison (Bison bison). Buffalo have been known in Europe and Asia for thousands of years, and have nothing to do with bison. Americans may be in the sloppy habit of calling bison "buffalo", but since neither the Mechaber nor the Rama were American this is irrelevant. Americans also have a fish they call "buffalo", but that's equally irrelevant. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:55:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:55:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Rav Tal on the state of Israel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160510235548.GA7880@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:10:45PM +0300, R Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim: > In these days of the yahrzeit of RAL there are many articles about > him. One article says that RAL objected strongly to the above > statements. He questions whether any rabbi has the "email address" > of hashem and knows what is helping or hindering the coming of Moshiach. His rebbe and FIL held a similar opinion. Which is why RYBS suggested to those talmidim who were going to say the Tefillah leShalom haMedinah that they might be able to get adding "shetehei" without arguments from the congregation May our Father who is in heaven bless Israel that it become the beginning of the flowering of our redemption, rather than asserting as a given that Israel is that beginning. R SY Alkalai and R ZH Kalisher, the first RZ (or religious proto-Zionist) voices, certainly did speak in terms of ge'ulah and qibbutz golios in the eschatological sense. However, R' Yitzcvhaq Reines, Mizrachi's founder, as well as R' Shmuel Mohilever were also non-messianic in their Zionism, and yet their Zionism was religious, not in addition to their religion. We've discussed in the past the fact that not all RZism is Messianic Zionism, and in fact amongst RZ gedolim, this opinion might not even have the majority. Depending, of course, on the fruitless exercise of defining who is a gadol. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:17:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:17:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to India. They did not initiate the discussion - The Be'ar Hagola tracks the source of that halacha to the Agur (Rabbi Yaakov Landau, 15th century) who was quoting Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron of 13th century Trani, Italy. In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water buffalo, an animal that is raised domestically as cattle in parts of Italy. It is from the milk of water buffalo that mozzarella cheese was originally made near Naples, Italy, and in southern Italy it is still used to make "authentic" mozzarella cheese. This would lead one to suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a kosher behamah (domesticated animal) see here for detals: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:38:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:38:21 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. ie from the halachic point of view is it a bigger problem having a memorial day in Nissan; or a simcha day in Iyar. and from a hashkafic view which is more problematic. the latter comes onto violation of 3 Oaths, idea of a 'secular' state in holy land etc . the former only that somehow holocaust is a prelude to a State, and that those who died resisting were somehow more valiant.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <57327651.5030802@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 04:17 PM, Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah wrote: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to > India. Not "likely". There's not even a hava amina otherwise. > In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water > buffalo Not just Italian but in pretty much every language, including English. > This would lead one to > suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, > were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a > kosher behamah (domesticated animal) Again, this is not a suspicion, it's a complete certainty, and I'm astonished that it even occurs to anyone to question it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:22:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 03:22:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0822d59a-9d49-b752-e005-a309ae78f4c0@starways.net> On 5/10/2016 11:38 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction > these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more > objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. Yom HaShoah is almost certainly more problematic. When the government of Israel asked the rabbis to make a Holocaust remembrance day, they were told that Tisha B'Av and Asara B'Tevet (Yom kiddush klal) covered it, and refused to create a separate day. The Knesset created Yom HaShoah themselves. It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious observances is likely to have a problem with it. Personally, I'm one of them, and while I won't walk down the sidewalk whistling on Yom HaShoah, I don't otherwise pay any attention to the day at all. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 23:56:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:56:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, *Bubalus bubalis*, native to > India. ... The question is then the halachic status of the American Bison - does it require kisui hadam and can one breed an american bison with cattle (beefalo) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 22:20:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 01:20:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re:, Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Micha Berger wrote: > Zvi Lampel wrote: > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... >: where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in >: fact it implies the opposite R. Micha responded: > Then why would you think that was the reference? My answer: Because you wrote so in reply to me previously: > Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:33:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Micha Berger" > Subject: Re: IS THE WORLD GOOD? ... >> ZL: can you direct me to where the Ramchal, too, says this?) > > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See > , where I > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and > Pischei Chokhmah 30. And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 03:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> References: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160511100415.GC11561@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:20:03AM -0400, H Lampel wrote: : > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I : > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See : > , where I : > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and : > Pischei Chokhmah 30. : And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without : citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Because there we were discussing something about logic and theology in general -- that it has no law of excluded middle. Or in English, the specific rule of paradoxes does not apply to G-d nor the shorashim of creation. And his version of the thesis of zeh le'umas zeh is in pesach 30. (R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) also uses zeh le'umas zeh and the idea that paradox is only prohibited bepo'al, not bemachashavah, to explain eilu va'eilu.) It is also sufficient for this conversation, as it shows that G-d can make a paradox manifest. However, I am still on the hunt for the source of the specific idea I was repeating from R' Aryeh Kaplan, that logic as a whole is a nivra rather than an aspect of Emes. (Work being what it has been the last week and a half, it's a very part time hunt.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 04:52:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asks: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) Google is wonderful. I entered "yoreh deah 28:4", and the third hit brought me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info about who they are) which says: > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) rules that one does not > perform kisuy hadam for a buffalo; this determines it to be a > beheimah. (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been meant. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 08:00:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:00:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160511150044.GE7880@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:52:18AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info : about who they are) which says: : : > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) ... : > (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, : > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years : > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... : Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been : meant. I think that is a list of other species for which the same logic would apply, and not other possible translations of buffalo. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 12:50:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:50:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 14:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5733A635.7040108@sero.name> On 05/11/2016 03:50 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile > "On the day that you are redeemed from the exile". Since lechol hade'os that has not yet happened (for instance, nobody has changed the davening to drop all the requests for the redemption, since it's already happened), it follows that hallel should *not* be said. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 23:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:52:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: A while back I did a shiur which touched on the efficacy of "Keil Maaleh's". I found one source which said to give tzedakah before making a keil maaleh rather than pledging to do so. This sounded extremely rational; deliver rather than promise. Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? 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 Thu May 12 00:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:44:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smartphone on shabbat Message-ID: *Zomet At The Crossroads* *> "Telegramma" - Speaking on a Smartphone on Shabbat */ The Zomet Institute At Zomet Institute we receive many requests on a wide range of subjects. One subject that keeps coming back is: When will you design a cellphone that can be used on Shabbat? This question comes from health and security personnel, who use a special telephone as part of their regular Shabbat routine, and who are looking for a way to use the new devices while keeping desecration of Shabbat to a minimum. We are happy to announce that in the last few weeks Zomet has finished the development of a smartphone "App" that uses a speaking device for Shabbat and where the keys are operated using the principle of "*gramma*" ? indirect action. Touching the screen merely changes the flow of an existing current, and therefore the smartphone can be used when there is a need for it. The " *Telegramma*" App is suitable for use only in cases of dire need, such as for matters related to health, security, or similar situations. The App is suitable for smartphones which operate on Android version 4 or higher, and it operates in conjunction with the Telegramma speaking device. For more details, contact us at www.zomet.org5-6]ssxhjxhhxnngntn/eng. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:31:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:31:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > observances is likely to have a problem with it. She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing shows that in the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:42:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:42:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic Message-ID: I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with the present discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: <<< Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? >>> Here's my guess: What will motivate one to donate beforehand? Emotions run high when the rav gives his Yizkor drasha (or at least, the emotions *ought* to run high). It's hard to get into that frame of mind before the event. This is not like other things where we are sure to prepare in advance, like preparing our matzos or our sukkah. If someone shows up at the Seder without matzos, the ramifications will insure that he will certainly remember next year. But if he arrives at Yizkor (or whenever) and forgot to donate beforehand, he'll simply promise to give after Yom Tov, and this b'dieved eventually became the standard. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57346F3E.5080102@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 06:42 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b > which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects > there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change > this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum > of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to > do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd > spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with > the present discussion That is what logicians say. See the Lewis quote in my .sig. But how do you know that it's true? Chassidus says that G-d *can* make A (which is greater than B, which is greater than C) less than C, if He wants to, because He created logic in the first place, and is not bound by it. Mekom ha'aron is the most famous example. Lewis would undoubtedly say that Chazal's description can't be true, because an object that takes up space can't simultaneously *not* take up any space. An object that has width *must* add to the width of the room in which it lies. But Chazal tell us it didn't. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 17:33:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:33:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." It has been noted that if the problem occurs because the dough is not or cannot be thoroughly kneaded, then flour would be on the inside as well. Reading the words of the ShA HaR leaves no room for any doubt - he was definitely not concerned about flour INSIDE the Matza, ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza. This is what he writes, "In truth there is no Halachic problem with Gebrochts, nevertheless those who are strict deserve a blessing. This stringency is not without reason and one who observes it is not acting in a bizarre manner but is in fact concerned to avoid a Torah prohibition [brings a number of authorities] since the flour may not have been thoroughly baked" [because flour that is baked is denatured and cannot ever become Chamets] "As can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded. Even though the flour INSIDE the Matza is a much more serious problem because it has been protected from the heat of the oven, AND IN OUR CASE THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION ...... " So - back to the Q - is this factually correct? It is clear that the ShAHa is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? and that if so, it is not baked and thereby denatured? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:35:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512153522.GD9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:42:50AM +0000, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic... Because we use logic to understand things. The chisaron is in "understand" not the possibility being discussed. Lemashal, Quantum Logic is very different than the logic we use to think with, and yet, it's still a logic with its own rules. Can you understand how electron X is spin-up or spin-down, and X is spin-left could be true, while the statement electron X is either spin-up and spin-left, or X is spin-down and spin-left might not? And yet, the difference is experimentally provable. Saying that Hashem can violate logic inherently means that some of His Actions are among the non-understandable things about Him. ... : An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic... Nu, so you agree with the Rambam. That "a round triangle" is a nonsense phrase, not describing something that can or cannot be done. Modern studies into logic, which has reveals that there is no one true logical system, have made me more skeptical. OTOH, if Hashem can defy logic, how would we ever be able to use logic to argue the point? Any proof of the position I attributed to the Ramchal and Zev attributes to Chassidus would require ruling out an adherance to logic rather than pro-atively arguing for its defiance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:22:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512152203.GC9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 06:31:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Under the current rules, Yom : Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time.... : While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted : from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which : is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the : Knesset or from the rabanim? The CR's office, in order to reduce chillul Shabbos. IIRC, for a while after the rule change, the RCA advised observing on 5 Iyyar in chu"l anyway, as American O observances wouldn't pose that kind of chilul Shabbos risk. They since changed policy. I suggested that someone may make peace with the fact by noting that having a country where the legal holidays are moved around in order to minimize chillul Shabbos is much of what one is saying Hallel for. But as one blogger put it... When you sit down to learn daf beis, you make a birkhas haTorah but not a siyum. There is what to celebrate in the existence of such a country, but the fact that they need to worry about chilul Shabbos by the masses shows Yom haAtzma'ut is a "birhas haTorah", not a siyum. Or as Rav Dovid Lifshitz put it... There is much to celebrate about YhA. But beyond atzma'ut, the nation needs to find the etzem. The job is only half-done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:08:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:08:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99d163da-fad0-a04f-8f8f-a9be47a769e7@starways.net> On 5/12/2016 1:31 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > > > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > > observances is likely to have a problem with it. > > She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know > how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, > Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a > quick glance at Wikipedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing > shows that in > the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) > > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has > resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) > on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the > change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? I don't know. I suspect the rabbanut, because they were the ones who established the holiday in the first place, but I don't know for certain. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:06:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:06:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah >> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile << -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: <19882.2235ddad.44661f9f@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) in Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 53 >> i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. << >>>> What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. But I will take the occasion to draw your attention to what I have written in the past about Yom Hashoah. This is from Cross-Currents, 2005. (I don't recommend wading through all the comments there though.) http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/05/06/yom-hashoah/ And in 2006, in the comments section to a post by Shira Schmidt [http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/05/04/the-controversy-over-holocaust-falle n-soldiers-terror-victims-memorials/], I wrote this about Yom Atzmaut: --quoting myself-- My mother has cousins ? an elderly couple, not religious ? who lost their only son in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Every year on Yom Hazikaron they cry anew, but they find the abrupt transition to Yom Atzmaut too jarring and cannot find it in themselves to celebrate. The Israeli government tried to set up a neat historical lesson that would take a few weeks each year and go in an orderly progression: 1. Galus Jews go like sheep to the slaughter ? Yom Hashoah 2. In Israel a new Jew is created, the proud Israeli soldier, who is brave and strong. He doesn?t die a helpless victim, he dies a hero, defending his homeland ? Yom Hazikaron 3. All the evil and sorrow of our past is now redeemed with the glorious new day, a proud and strong new young country, the State of Israel ? Yom haAtzmaut. Of course this simple story line has become darkened and more complex with the passage of time. Israel is no longer strong and new and young but weary and battle-scarred. Nowadays Yom Hashoah is commemorated with far more respect for the survivors than was the case in the early days, far more sorrow and far less arrogance and false pride. The Israeli Army is still looked at with pride but more young Israelis try to get out of serving ? a favorite ploy is to feign mental illness. The brave soldiers so lionized in the past are instead looked at today simply as sons and brothers. There is less glory and pride and more sorrow and grief, for all the young lives lost. Nevertheless, of all the institutions of the modern Israeli state, the army is the one most deserving of our respect and gratitude ? in my opinion. Finally, Yom Atzmaut is not looked at, either, the way it was in the past. If you read Yoram Hazony?s book *The Jewish State* ? or look at the soul-searching in the Mizrachi camp after the Gaza withdrawal ? you see that on both ends of the political spectrum, a weariness and wariness have set in, as the State has not lived up to expectations. The Left is in a post-Zionist phase where patriotism and flag-waving are passe and the alleged mistreatment of the Arabs overshadows all else. The Right has seen its messianic expectations dashed and realizes that the State is not yet the Redemption. My mother?s cousins who can?t find it in their hearts to celebrate Yom Atzmaut are not the only ones. Israel needs to rewrite its storyline. -- end of quote -- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 14:57:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:57:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:06pm RnTK wrote: : From: Eli Turkel via Avodah :> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. :> In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the :> Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi :> explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are :> redeemed at the end of the exile : Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. Nor on Chanukah? Besides, what R' Yochananan mishum R' Shim'on ben Yehotzadaq actually says there on that pasuq is that "laylah she'ein mequdash lachag, ein ta'un hallel". Which would also exclude Chanukah. >From context, I would say the gemara is asking why the existence of a holiday qorban in particular is not sufficient to justify Hallel on Pesach Sheini. So RY says, because the night is not muqdash to the qorban hachag. As for Rashi, he is commenting on the quoted pasuq. "The song will be for you -- on the day that you will be redeemed from the galus." "Like in the night which will be santified chag -- like the way you are acustomed to sing on the night which is sanctified chag. And you do not have a nightof chag to demand shirah except the nights of Pesachim, on their eating." Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 12:48:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:48:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512194844.GE9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:31AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The ShA HaRav writes : "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their : surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly : kneaded ...." Mimah-nafshakh the AR is speaing about it being a big enough risk to justify a minhag lehachmir, but not to the level of an issur. The AR writes "Be'emes, ki gam she'eino isur gamur bubarur midina, m"m hamachmir tavo alav berakhah." If it was normal for flour to be present on matzos, it would be a risk one would not be allowed to take. And if it was easy to see, no risk would be legitimate -- efshar levareir! We need to understand his empirical claims accordingly. Not a statement about something blatant that someone would notice without even a formal survey. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 19:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57351578.1080609@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 05:57 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which > Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel > for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before > establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. I'm pretty sure this does exclude any other night-time hallel. That, after all, is the gemara's point in quoting the pasuk in the first place -- to show that there is only one night on which hallel is said, and therefore it is not said on Pesach Sheni. I also don't see the implication that the future holiday's hallel will be said at night. All the pasuk seems to be saying is that there will be a new yomtov on which you will say hallel, as you do on the night that is sanctified for a chag. Yeshayahu is merely citing an example of an occasion when hallel is said, and could easily have cited a different one instead, but he would have had to be more specific, since there are many days on which hallel is said, and many on which it is not. By citing Pesach night as his example, he can get away with saying, essentially, "like on hallel night", which is not ambiguous because there is only one. From this the gemara learns that there is no hallel on Pesach Sheni. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:25:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:25:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is worse Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/search/?s=yom+haatzmaut&sort=1 1. the issue of date changing of YH is dealt with in rabbi grunstein's lecture 2. the issue of saying hallel at all , that some provocatively dismiss outright, is dealt with by rabbi zylberman, appropriately in his talk at the Aguda of Passaic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 23:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 06:20:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt Message-ID: While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day from the end of the British mandate to avoid chillul shabbat so yom haazmaut was always arranged to avoid chillul shabbat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 07:24:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May I presently buy Israeli carrots after the recent Shmita year? Message-ID: <1463149425226.74416@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. Israeli carrots currently being sold in the U.S. (May 2016) at this point can be assumed to no longer be peiros shevi'is and may be purchased lichatchila. In fact, purchasing Israeli products is commendable as it benefits the Israeli economy. However, if the carrots do not have a reliable kosher certification, one must separate the relevant tithes (Terumos and Ma'aseros). This year is the first year of the shemita cycle. This means that ma'aser sheini must be separated. The ma'aser sheini portion can be redeemed by transferring its kedusha (elevated status) to a coin. Even a nickel may be used, provided the ma'aser sheini portion (approximately 9% of the package of carrots) is worth more than a peruta, approximately 3 or 4 cents. For the procedure to separate Terumah and Maaser, see https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/separating-terumah-and-maaser/. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 08:52:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:52:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) 2 questions. 1. What is the heter to free the kids? (it's a torah prohibition to free them) 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha and kids thru her (eved ivri) He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:07:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:07:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] on a role for a 'secular' Israel Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/856920/rabbi-moshe-taragin/secular-zionism-for-religious-jews/#.VzVBhX-h6_c.mailto Very good explanation to MTA boys on how to look at the zionist enterprise and how to view it in the scope haskala, brit sinai vs moriah , kiddush hashem etc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:44:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:44:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: >>>What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. ----some people need to ask themselves why asking a halachic question provokes them. maybe the 'slyness' was pointing out that an issur can only be perceived as assur by those who believe said action is assur , not by those who feel act in question is muttar/mitzvah. clearly i couldn't ask why people who commemorate those two days don't realize that it's actually assur.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:18:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:18:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> Message-ID: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> On 05/13/2016 11:52 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer > who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce > children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular > Jews) > > 2 questions. > > 1. What is the heter to free the kids? > (it's a torah prohibition to free them) It's also prohibited to have relations with a shifcha, but Chazal permitted a mamzer to do so for this purpose. > 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he > did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them > (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? > parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos > 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha > and kids thru her (eved ivri) > He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship > with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) Why do you say that? On the contrary, "veyatz'ah ishto imo" means his wife goes in with him, i.e. lives with him at his owner's expense. And *only* a married eved ivri is allowed a shifcha. The simple and expected case is that he loves and gets along with *both* of his wives, and wants to stay with both. > The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Again, because she is his wife and they are his children. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:24:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:39 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted > from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which > is not the actual anniversary. > Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day... RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out on. That the Rabbanut moved that day forward or backward to avoid Chilul Shabbos was not significant. The day that Israel was declared a state is the day to say Hallel (and not to say Tachnun). One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:44:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:44:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160513184458.GC10043@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 06:24:08PM +0000, Harry Maryles wrote: : RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out : on... Although RAS was niftar before the telecom explosion that caused much of the RCA to shift position. As RGS recently wrote about R/Dr Aaron Levine of Flatbush : In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:54:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:54:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> Message-ID: <063701d1ad48$d0e0f7b0$72a2e710$@com> RZS writes ...How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? You are claiming a tremendous chidush l'halacha - that these are actually his kids. Do you have anyone who says this? It w appear not, bc they are not mityaches acharav (as a proof - we see that they are avodim, and not mamzers) mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 04:46:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 07:46:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> The justification for the shiur of a geris for kesmamim on clothing is that any spot that is a kegeris or less in area could be from a crushed parasite. So the kesem proves nothing. Also (Niddah 58b) points out that they couldn't make a gezeirah that would mean she would never be tahor leba'alah. I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? For comparison: Tosafos (58b, "ukidvarav") say that if she were infested with many ma'akhalos, one could be toleh even a larger kesem on that. We do not hold like Tosafos. The AhS (YD 190:18) pins that on these bugs being loners. They don't scamper in pairs. Multiple crushed lice would make multiple kesamim. Alternatively (se'if 27, in the name of the Rosh se'if 6) lo pelug chakhamim. Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. (A ma'akholes is apparently too common or too unnoticable to warrant needing to know if there was one around.) And the AhS (se'if 31) says that because pishpeshin can't be found where he lives, this din doesn't apply. This is based on Rashi ("R"N") saying "there are places where pishpeshin are found, and in those places..." Would people living in modern settings have to say the same about the ma'akholes? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:19:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:19:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which > case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, > pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've > unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than > lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the > ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. The bedbugs that I had seen in both the US and Israel are significantly larger than lice, and when filled with blood, hold a lot more. Furthermore, bed bugs have a very distinct odor (at least when there is a significant infestation) that many people can smell. -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:32:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 08:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57386C6F.6070906@sero.name> > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a > place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, > that this is a likely alternative explanation. Bedbugs are back, and can strike anywhere, and the first indication of their presence, long before one actually sees them, is the kesamim they leave behind. I wonder if "maacholes" actually means bedbug, but even if it doesn't the same principle applies. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 07:12:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:12:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live > in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice > and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. > > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah > didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and > therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came > from? I've always figured on the second of these two. My reasoning is based on the halachos of where the kesem was found. If we are going to make logical estimates "about where the kesem came from", then we shouldn't care about whether or not the cloth can be mekabel tumah. Who cares about the size of the cloth, or the color of the cloth, or the material of the cloth? But the system was set up such that if the cloth is not m'kabel tumah, then the kesem can't be tamay either. And so too for the size of the kesem. I had a lot of trouble understanding - and even accepting - the above, but when I realized that without hargasha everything becomes d'rabanan, it began to make sense. (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche to set it up however they wanted.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:25:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:25:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mazer Message-ID: <> There is a major discussion if one has a child who is a mamzer whether he has fulfilled the mtzvah of pru u-revu or not. Similarly is there a mitzva for a mamazer to marry a mamzerut to have children (see minchat chinuch, har tzvi, kovetz shiurim) BTW I saw an opinion that if a mamzer marries a shifcha and has a child he doesn't fulfil; pru u-revi but he does fulfill le-shevet yezarah see a discussion by RAL on pru urevu vs leshevet yetzirah (Hebrew) http://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D6%B6%D7%91%D6%B6%D7%AA-%D7%90 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:43:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Mordechai Cohen asked: <<< The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) >>> My understanding is that if a Jew has relations with a non-Jewess and the resulting children convert to Judaism, he DOES fulfill p'ru uv'vu through them. (Maybe that's only in the case of a non-Jewush man who converts together with his children? I'm not sure.) <<< He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha ... The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? >>> No, it's not the *posuk* who refers to the shifcha and children that way. The posuk is merely quoting the man. It is the man who referred to them that way, and given his love for them, I'd expect nothing less. One might argue that he wrong for feeling that love and/or for expressing it, but that's irrelevant: He does feel that way, and he did verbalize it, and the Torah is merely quoting him. My second answer is more technical. Hebrew has no word for wife. His words could just as easily be translated as "I love my woman", which I presume you'll concede to be accurate. As far as "my children", well, he just wasn't being very clear. He didn't mean "my halachic children", but merely "my genetic children". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:43:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 01:43:44 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? Message-ID: It seems R Micha has erred by not recognising that the risk is NOT about whether there is flour, of course there is flour - as the SAHaR says 'behold we see with our own eyes' that there is flour on the Matza the risk is whether the flour that is certainly there on many Matzos - has been toasted adequately to be denatured and prevented from becoming Chamets when exposed to water. Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57389966.5020706@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 10:12 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts > in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha > d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it > is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only > works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche > to set it up however they wanted.) This is not true. Mid'oraisa tzuras hapesach works in a reshus horabim de'oraisa. That one can't fix a r"hr simply by putting up four poles and four strings is mid'rabanan. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 11:45:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> From: M Cohen via Avodah R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) Mordechai cohen >>>>> There is no "shifcha" today. But a mamzer can marry a non-Jewish woman and have children with her, and later those children can convert to Judaism. I'm not saying he is halachically allowed to marry a non-Jewish woman but the fact is, if he does so, his children will not be mamzerim. Similarly a kohen who is a challal can avoid having children who are challalim by having children with a non-Jewish woman, and later they can convert and be kosher Jews. True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be cha llalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid the consequences of sin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 16:59:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:59:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 02:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such > eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was > tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid > the consequences of sin. That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no reason not to encourage him to do it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 01:32:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:32:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: On 5/16/2016 2:59 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one > we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually > forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no > reason not to encourage him to do it. Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 02:58:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 05:58:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516095809.GA31988@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:43:44AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the : facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour : is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. ... only because you're asking about the problem being prevalent enough for gebrochts to be assur. Whereas I am arguing that by context, we know the SAhR's "harbei" means prevalent enough to be worth a chumerah. And that kind of frequency would require a broad survey. Not sure if that qualifies as efshar levareir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 04:57:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:57:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten bam) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 06:18:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> R' Micha - thanks for the m"makom - still have to look it up. RMB also asked - Are you asking why a man might want to have children other than his chiyuv to do so? Ans. I am aware that a man can (and might want to) raise children not his own. Ie adoption. My question was that R Tarfon seems to imply that his eitza is more than just adopting and raising children not his own. I didn't (and still don't) understand why his eitza is better - they are not mityaches to him in any way. RZS's answer is not true. BTW, thanks to Reb Google, see article on this subject (though it does not extensively deal w/ my questions) [Posted as part of the thread or -micha] Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 10:41:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't > think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah Kamoha) seems to disagree. On 05/16/2016 07:57 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: >> "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not >> yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" > The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children > are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The > Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with > the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks > nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten > bam) The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) But the proof that your children by a nochris are nochrim like her is from the pasuk that says they are not your children. That pasuk doesn't *say* that they're nochrim, but the gemara deduces that since they have no Jewish parent what else could they be? The pasuk itself is not concerned with their status, since the avera it says they'll do is avoda zara, which is forbidden also to nochrim, and thus if they were your children this would be a matter of concern to you. (Your obligation of chinuch would surely apply to your non-Jewish children, if it were possible for you to have any; you wouldn't have to teach them not to eat treif or break shabbos, but surely you would have to teach them not to serve avoda zara, and thus it should upset you that their mother will teach them to serve it.) By saying that this is not something you should be upset about, the pasuk is telling you that they are not your children, and thus their idolatry and subsequent damnation is none of your business. On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > RZS answer is not true. And your proof is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 22:14:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: On Monday, May 16, 2016, Zev Sero wrote: > On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't >> think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. > Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar > Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. > The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt > http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah > Kamoha) seems to disagree. You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being your children. I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they are your children or not. Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 13:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <5bc7f3.13131e6f.446b89a5@aol.com> > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone.[--old TK] AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben ben1456 at zahav.net.il >>>>> But I think the son of a challal is a challal, and his son, and his son, forever. And the daughter of a challal cannot marry a kohen. So his granddaughter (son of his son), his great-granddaughter and so on, can never marry kohanim -- at least until so many generations have passed that no one remembers the family are challalim. Whereas if he has a son with a non-Jewish woman that son is not a challal. He's also not a Jew, but he can become one. And the daughter of a ger can marry a kohen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:13:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 23:13:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben On 5/15/2016 8:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:34:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:34:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A20C2.2050400@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 03:14 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. > The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with > their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, > and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's > property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to > exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, > but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that > of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) > > You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being > your children. Neither the pasuk nor the gemara says anything about their yichus. All it discusses is their status. The Pasuk says they belong to their mother's owner, therefore the gemara says they are avadim. There's no chain of logic involved here; the gemara is merely restating the pasuk. That is very unlike the gemara's next case, where the pasuk doesn't directly address the children in question at all, and its indirect statement is that they are not yours, from which the gemara infers that they must be nochrim. > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. > Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as > a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. 1) Who says a Jew can't be related to a non-Jew? The gemara's order of logic is *not* "they're nochrim, therefore they're not your children", but rather "they're not your children, therefore they're nochrim". 2) Avadim *are* Jews, so who says they can't be related to Jews? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:31:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 05:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from > other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:57:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516215742.GC21112@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:27:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: : shabasos limnucha : moadim l'simcha : chagim uzmanim l'sason : : I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are... : My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, : because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are : Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they : the same in regards to Sason? Apparently they are different aspects of the same thing. As in, "Chag haMatzos haZeh, zeman Cheiruseinu." There is a duality between zeman va'eis, as in a beris being be'ito uvizmano. Quoting what I wrote in v15n74: > ... RAKotler has a beautiful vort on the > difference. Beqitzur to the point of omitting the beauty: eis = a > point in the time sequence of a process. (RSRH would probably relate > "eis" to "ad".) Be'ito, when the baby is ready. Zeman = a point in > time according to a scedule. In this case, the morning of day 8 (or > day 9 when a safeiq Shabbos situation arises). I wrote a vort for MmD > on eis, zeman, qeitz, yamim, shanim, and Jewish time in general at > . In that vertl, I suegges that a qeitz is where the zeman and eis for the end coincide. Thus, "miqeitz shenasayim yamim" is when the predetermined number of years in jail were up AND when Yoseif was developmentally ready. Shanim and yamim. Circular time and linear time. A chag is a point in circular time, /ch-v-g/ related to /`-v-g/ to draw a circle. It's a sacred eis. But every chag coincides with a sacred zeman. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 23rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination Fax: (270) 514-1507 stifle others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 15:02:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:02:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516220214.GD21112@aishdas.org> I feil to see the problem. Nosein ta'am and bitul beshishim go hand-in-hand. RMF yses this argument in a letter to R' Pinechas Teitz to explain why whiskey can be made in sherry casks; since stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6, there is no problem of ta'am. You would obviously tased a mixture of 6 parts water to one part wine. Since qitniyos are batel berov, why would there be reason to say that a pot can becomes "peasdik"? (To quote a subject line from a month ago.) Are we afraid that the volume of the walls of the pot exceed the volume the pot holds? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 22:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:35:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> Message-ID: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No issur involved. 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? On 5/16/2016 11:31 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters > are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim > like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:34:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be :> declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? : Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one : can't accept it in many other cases A little more complicated, since discussing chumeros in mamzeirus raises an issue distinct to mamzeirus. "Kivan denitme'ah, nitme'ah" is a gezeiras hakasuv which makdes resolving mamzeirus in many cases beyond chumerah -- altogether needless. Being born of a father other than the husband does not make these people mamzeirim altogether. More than that, the gemara (Qiddushin 71a) continues telling you one SHOULD NOT reveal the families in which mamzeirus is nitme'ah. It is therefore consistent to refuse DNA testing for mamzeirus (in these cases), while believing that DNA testing is in principle halachically valid evidence. Part of a general reluctance to gather eviudence. However, I would think we could use DNA testing to help a shetuqi or asufi, to free him for the shadow of mamzeirus or at least allow him to marry vadai mamzeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 08:04:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:04:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517150411.GD8481@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 05:54:21PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote: : Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. : While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of : yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? Exactly. Better to use a DNA test to make a shetuqi or asufi either kosher yichus or a vadai mamzer than leaving him a shetuqi or asifu. So I assume in such cases, we should use the DNA test; either result is better than none. (And it's not a kivan shenitme'ah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 09:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 5/17/2016 8:35 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No > issur involved. But then their sons are challalim. > 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to > marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a > convert or divorcee)? Zona, with a zayin. I know one couple who, when they went to get married, were told by their rabbi that she was a virgin. That he didn't want to hear about what she'd done or not done. Granted, she wasn't marrying a kohen, but I guess there's a chazaka. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 12:54:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:54:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:06:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Areivim wrote: : Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people whose values contradict : the Torah is not a hillul hashem.... : As RZS has often said here, kiddush hashem does not mean "good PR" And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul hasheim because CH *does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive Peloni. Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. The gemara literally defines qiddush hasheim has good PR. To tweak that first quoted sentence: Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people because they hold values that contradict the Torah is not a chillul hasheim. That isn't you pushing them away from avodas Hashem, it's them a natural downward spiral. However, lowering that estaeem among people whose values contradict the Torah's for other reasons is NOT "sheyehei sheim shamayim mis'aheiv al yadekha." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:30:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > Peloni. Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a *kiddush* haShem. > Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct value system. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:24:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:24:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> Message-ID: <573B7DFB.1050504@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > Btw, thanks to reb google, see article on this subject (though it does not > extensively deal w my questions) > > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf Very thorough, but I see one enormous flaw -- the author takes it for granted that slavery is barred by dina demalchusa. This may be true in some countries, e.g. the UK, where the common law has held for centuries that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in, and thus that any slave who sets foot in England automatically becomes free. But it remains to be established that this is the case in all countries, particularly in the USA, where the 13th amendment only bans *involuntary* servitude. I am unaware of any law in the USA that would prevent a person from voluntarily becoming the property of another, and after _Lawrence_ and _Obergefell_ such laws, if they exist, may even be unconstitutional! If so, then the shifcha method could work here. There may well also be other countries where this is the case. And in Israel it might be possible to introduce legislation in the Knesset to explicitly legalise voluntary avdus, with appropriate safeguards to prevent it being abused. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:51:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 00:51:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't > include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we > make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the severity of the laws of taharot. He says that even though that reason no longer applies in our current circumstances, we can't nullify the gezerah of ketamim altogether. But we certainly don't need to extend it beyond the specifications of the original gezerah. So a ketem smaller than a k'gris does not make a woman niddah, even nowadays when such a stain cannot plausibly be attributed to a ma'akolet. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:47:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. : : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. Where does it say that? And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah by how clean some TC's frock is? : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation is not limited to those peers. : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive : >Peloni. : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a : *kiddush* haShem. ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off to Tzeduqim? Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. : : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct : value system. You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such limitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517220836.GA31726@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51:47AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. : Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the : reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the : severity of the laws of taharot... So the CS holds that kegeris is the limit of the gezeirah, and not just part of the general "you can be toleh kesamim on anything plausible". Pishpishin and the shiur of a keturmos (the size of a bean called a "lupine"?) *is* considered part of that general rule. To the extent that the Rambam doesn't give it special mention. Which brings me to the next question... How does the CS know that kegeris and blaming a ma'akholes is different in kind than the rest of the sugya? We could deduce from the Rambam, but that just shifts my question up some centuries. For example, the Yereim says that the shiur is based on the lice of your region, and not the same kegeris (about a nickle) of chazal. Of course (given the above), the CS does say the shiur is a geris, not tied to the size of engourged lice. And does that mean that the Yereim (and the mi'ut of contemporary posqim who hold like him) would say there is no shiur today? BTW, the PT, #12 says besheim the Raavad that there is no shiur if the kesem is black, since a ma'akheles stain would always be rad. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 05:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. > : > : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > > Where does it say that? It's completely obvious, and doesn't need saying. It simply can't be otherwise. > And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah > by how clean some TC's frock is? Apparently so. Otherwise what guide do you have? Why do you assume pagans esteem cleanliness, when for every one that does so there's probably another who esteems filth and despises cleanliness? > : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, > > : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > > The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation > is not limited to those peers. But non-peers may well think highly of him for it. Think of the "game" community that has formed online in the last 20 years, and what sort of traits they admire and despise in a person. A reputation that would embarass a t"ch's peers would be lionised in those circles. > : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > : >Peloni. > > : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and > : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a > : *kiddush* haShem. > > ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off > to Tzeduqim? Then it's a good bet that it's a kiddush haShem. > Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my > capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. Actually the gemara's lashon is may *his* Lord forgive him. But it's obviously being said by people who know what Hashem's standards are. > : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. > : > : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct > : value system. > > You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such > limitation. It *has* to have it, because we have voluminous *evidence* of what KH/CH is, and it's emphatically *not* that sheim shomayim should be beloved by those "who call bad good and good bad, who establish darkness as light and light as darkness, bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:57:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> Who is the audience to chilul hasheim in Yesodei haTorah 5:11? "Haberios". Ad sheyimtz'u HAKOL meqlsin oso, ve'ohavim oso, umis'avim lema'asav. Harei zeh qideish as hasheim... "Hakol" is all who? Not all the berios, since that's all he (repeatedly) describes as the observers? -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:35:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:35:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish Message-ID: A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels that there is no health problem can eat the two together -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:32:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:32:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: <> RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea of shifcha today is ridiculous -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:28:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:28:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 05:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:28:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735391/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/eating-fish-and-meat-together/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 04:10:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573C4DA9.9060307@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 05:28 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they >> are your children or not. > > Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> > > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Of course marriage is an occasion when one is *interested* in yichus, just as one is interested in health, character, and all kinds of other things; would you say that "health refers to marrriage, and might have nothing to do with topics like strength, diet, medical treatment, or life expectancy"?! -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 07:27:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:27:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> RBW asked.. L'maaseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a zona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? Ans. Yes, all BT girls are asked 'as discreetly as possible' if they are mutar to a cohen or not when in the shidduch parsha. (bc rov are not eligible) L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must look towards FFB shidduchim This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they bring it up otherwise) Some stats: The average age Americans lose their virginities is 17.1 for both men and women The CDC also reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females aged 20 to 24. That number drops below 5 percent aged 25 to 29 Statistically, if you didn't have sex in your teen years, you're in the minority. The interesting/disturbing problem is that many (rov?) BT cohens are not probably not cohens. (and actually w be mutar to a zona, mutar l'tamai l'masim, etc) If the BT cohens mother grew up post 1960s/70s/80s or so (and became BT post high school), it's probably a chazakah that she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. It's unlikely that the BT boy is willing to ask his mother if she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. (and even if she says she wasn't, is she be believed against the chazaka?) I personally heard from a major chareidi posek that for this reason a cohen s l'chatchila not go out w a BT cohens daughter, if the parents were married before they became frum and she was a teenager post 1960s/70s/80s or so (bc of the possibility that she is actually the daughter of a chalalah who was forbidden to marry her father) As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 09:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:28pm IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they :> are your children or not. : :> Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. : : Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage... I assume you mean: Yichus refers to a persons lineage WRT whom they and their descendents may marry. Do I understand correctly? : It might have nothing to do : with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between : parents and child. Is there a source for making such a chiluq, or are you just posing a hava amina for discusion. I was told lehalkhah ulemasseh that an adoptive child's honoring his parents is a qiyum of kavod harav, not kibud av va'eim. So for KAvA, some kind of genetic parentage is involved. At 12:32pm IDT, RET continued (on a second aspect of the discussion): : RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea : of shifcha today is ridiculous I would like to have the grapevine confirmed on this one. But in any case... When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and shevuyim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:02:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> Message-ID: <573CA023.104@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 10:27 AM, M Cohen wrote: > L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must > look towards FFB shidduchim > > This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. > > At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they > bring it up otherwise) But what about chalalos? An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married. Who keeps track of that, let alone after several generations? > As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens > are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Not just BTs, as I pointed out above. And indeed many poskim do say that this is why our cohanim only duchen on yomtov; since they have no yichus, and can't know whether they're really entitled to duchen, they should avoid doing so except when it would be blatantly obvious, and would thus cause a pegam on their family. (This is a based on a gemara that a safek cohen would collect terumah only once a year, to keep up his name.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573CA023.104@sero.name> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> <573CA023.104@sero.name> Message-ID: <0dcd01d1b128$28a623c0$79f26b40$@com> RZS wrote ..An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married.. Ans. But these FFB girls DO have a chezkas kashrus. My point was that todays female BTs, and male BTs descended from cohanim don't have that chazaka anymore Mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:01:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:01:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:35:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on : yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not : eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels : that there is no health problem can eat the two together In terms of acharonim, it's the Yad Efraim (#116) CS (shu"t #101) prohibiting and the MA (OC 173) permitting. The MA says nishtanah hateva. The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which we don't eat anymore. 2- The Rambam omits it as he does any other piece of medical advice that doesn't work. According to R' Avraham b haRambam, nishtanah hateva means the scientific theory has changed. WHch would make this idea a paralel to the MA's reasoning. The YE lists numerous posqim who prohibit, appealing to authority rather than giving a sevara But I think there is more to the story than included in this report. It's non-trivial to tell people -- especially Ashkenazim -- to follow the Rambam against both the SA (including the Rama) and commonly accepted practice. I am not questioning the conclusion, I just think we are missing critical pieces of the argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573CA7CB.5070500@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 12:51 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and > shevuyim? That's discussed at length in the article that was forwarded. Basically since avdus is a matter of dinei momonos it would seem to depend on dina demalchusa. But my question is on the metzius in the USA; I question the assumption that voluntary slavery is illegal here. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 11:36:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:36:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> References: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> <573BA37C.9070402@sero.name> <20160518174122.GE6953@aishdas.org> <573CAB65.1060509@sero.name> <2e7c1df5b9ef9931f5bc64b483eaeff8@aishdas.org> <573CAD8E.2030905@sero.name> <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160518183641.GA3694@aishdas.org> Two more examples of qiddush hasheim being about behavior in front of anyone. 1- Geneivas aku"m through circumvention is a lack of qiddush hasheim (R' Aqiva, BQ 113a) 2- Orechos Tzadiqim, sha'ar haEmes, calls getting the nations to say "Berikh E-lohehon diYhuda'i!" to be a qidush hasheim. The example is from Shimon ben Shetach requiring his talmidim to return a gem to a Yishmaeli when it was lifnim mishuras hadin. (TY BM 2:5, vilna 8a) (Recall this is pre-Islam, the Yishmaeli was aku"m.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 01:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:26:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or even leaves the family. One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive family and biology contributes nothing. Though not the topic of the shiur if the mother is a shifcha or a nonJew the father (who stays with the family) is entitled to all rights of a father including kibud Av independent of any halachot of yichus. He is not worse than an adoptive parent (my conclusion not discussed in the shiur) The only exception to this rule is sitting shiva. One is required to sit shiva for the biological father and may sit shiva for the adoptive father. When questioned he explained that not sitting shiva for a father even if he did nothing for the family might hint of mamzerut -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 21:32:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Adar Jacob via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:32:58 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 02:59:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 05:59:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160519095946.GD26914@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Adar Jacob wrote: : As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting : it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov : for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. This isn't an issue of rov. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that kivan shenitma, nitma -- a family in which the mamzeirus got forgotten must be left that way. One is *prohibited* against digging up lost claims of mamzeirus. I think of it in similar terms to how an afflicted person isn't a metzorah until the kohein says so. Here too, the biological parentage is the primary factor in determining mamzeirus, but apparently not the only one. We must also be aware of that parentage. And if hot, the person isn't halachically a mamzer and we wrong him by finding out his biological state and making him subject to the strictures. It is only a foundling (asufi) or someone who can't identify who his father is (shetuqi) who are *derabbanan* held under doubt. (De'oraisa, only a definite mamzer is assur.) Not cases of needing to dig up history of people who think they're kosher. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 26th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking Fax: (270) 514-1507 control just a way of abandoning one's self? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:15:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:15:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573DA051.10607@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 01:01 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including > > 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which > we don't eat anymore. Or perhaps we (i.e. middle Europeans) *do* eat this species but the Rambam (in Egypt) didn't and was unaware of it. I know the two Aris have identified it as a species that exists only in the Euphrates, and thus is eaten only in Turkey and Iraq, but that's not information the CS could have had. It could just as easily have been a species that also lives in the Danube, but not in the Nile or the Mediterranean. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:12:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:12:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Death Message-ID: <1463667145403.74543@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Vayikra 21:5 They shall not make a bald spot on their head, nor shall they shaveoff the corners of their beard and they shall not make a wound in their flesh. Heathenism, both ancient and modern, tends to associate religion with death. The kingdom of God begins only where man ends. Death and dying are the main manifestations of divinity. For, in the heathen view, the deity is a god of death, not of life; a god who kills and never revives, who sends death and its harbingers - sickness and poverty - so that men, mindful of his power and their own helplessness, should fear him. For this reason heathen temples stand beside graves, and the foremost place of heathen priests is beside a corpse. There, where the eyes are dimmed and the heart is broken, they find fertile soil for the dissemination of their religion. He who bears on his flesh a mark of death - a symbol of death's power to conquer all - and thus remains ever mindful of death, performs the religious act par excellence, and this especially befits a priest and his office. Not so are the priests in Judaism, because not so is the Jewish concept of God and not so is the Jewish religion. God, Who instructs the Kohein regarding his position in Israel, is a God of life. The most exalted manifestation of God is not in the power of death, which crushes strength and life. Rather, God reveals Himself in the liberating and vitalizing power of life, which elevates man to free will and eternal life. Judaism teaches us not how to die but how to live, so that even in life we may overcome death, an unfree existence, enslavement to physical things, and moral weakness. Judaism teaches us how to live every moment of earthly life as a moment of eternal life in the service of God; how thus to live every moment of a life marked by moral freedom, a life of thought and will, creativity and achievement, and also pleasure. This is the teaching to which God has dedicated His Sanctuary and for whose service He has consecrated the Kohanim, who teach the people the "basis and direction of life" __________________________________________________________________ Based on this may one conclude that the present day obsession with death that one finds in some Islamic circles is a reversion to heathenism? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:54:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:54:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In continuation of the topic of kibud av ve-em from yevamot 22b that there is ni issur to curse a wicked father rambam hilchot mamrim explains that this applies only the punishment the Tur disagrees and says that one must honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva others distinguish and say that one must honor a wicked father only while he is alive see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva R Zilberstein brings the Zecher Shlomo (Lech Lecha) and the Chida (Devash Le-phi 1:39) that therefore Avraham owed no honor to his father Terach once Terach handed him over to Nimrod. R Zilberstein further brought the Maharam Shick that one who is involved (metapel) in a mitzvah is the owner of the mitzvah and whoever works and establishes a mitzvah is the one to make the arrangements. Thus the one who actively rears the child is the "owner" of the child and gets to make the decisions and not the biological parent who is not around. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573DA738.2000201@sero.name> On 05/19/2016 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation > of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or > even leaves the family. > One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's > marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. > R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has > absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the > adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em > applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that > abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive > family and biology contributes nothing. Sorry, this is contrary to halacha. Kibbud av va'em is not connected to hakarat hatov; it's a duty that one owes to ones parents *regardless* of whether they did one good or bad. Even a mamzer owes his parents kibud, although they did him the worst evil. Even Avraham Avinu, whose father handed him over to be burned, owed him kibbud av. An adoptive "parent" is only owed hakarat hatov (and kevod rabbo if he taught him torah) and therefore is only owed it if he actually did good and not bad. An abusive adoptive parent is owed nothing. This is not subject to any machlokes, thus there is no room for different opinions. Someone who says otherwise is simply wrong. I found an answer to my speculation that a Jew's child by a shifcha might be considered his child. It's not so. An eved has no yichus at all, not even to his mother(!) let alone his father. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 06:37:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:37:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to > do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections > between parents and child RZS: > What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? > Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Yichus may of course have different meanings in different contexts. The first mishna in the fourth perek of Kiddushin, Asara Yuchasin, very strongly connects yichus to marriage. The mishna lists ten halachic categories of personal status (my translation of "yichus") , and then immediately details the connection of these statuses to the permissibility of marriage Indeed it is clear that according to this mishna, a *very fundamental implication* of yichus is whom can one marry halachically, Putting this more strongly it seems that the mishna is defining ten halachic "marriageability" categories (yuchasin), making marriageability a *defining characteristic* of yichus. This is most likely what RET had in mind. In the framework of this mishna, RZS' statement "What does yichus have to do with marriage?Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less." is untenable.Yichus defines whom you can marry. When the gemara states "bno min min hashifcha umin hanachrit u eino mityaches acharav" it is saying, as we know, that halachically the child of a male Jew and a female slave or a non-Jewish woman is not his child; there is no genealogical connection ("yichus") between them. This is the sense of yichus that RZS apparently favors, but is a meaning of yichus very different from that in the above cited mishna. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 03:02:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:02:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I am bringing in more detail the story told by R Zilberstein. He gives out notes before the shiur and so this is all in print if anyone is interested A man divorced his wife after a nasty settlement without leaving any mezonot for the wife or their daughter. Later the woman married again and had a new happy family and the new husband raised the daughter from the first marriage supplying all her needs while the biological father had no contact with his daughter A few days before the daughter's marriage the father shows up holding an invitation upset that the adoptive father is listed as the father of the kallah and the biological father isn't mentioned at all. He screamed is the husband of your mother really your father? Though he had no contact with his daughter he described the shame he had with his friends and demanded that they print a new invitation with himself listed as the father of the bride The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father of the bride. Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to have his name listed on the invitation. The daughter returned to her father with the psak of R Zilberstein and the father remarked that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also needs to participate in buying an apartment. R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the biological father is listed. He was not sure whether the language should be "be abuha" or "be nasa" . The first would be a lie since she didn't live with her father but the second language is used only for an orphaned bride. His preferred remedy was to leave that phrase out completely. Again anyone who wants to see the Hebrew original can contact me -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:12:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:12:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573F3781.9080405@sero.name> On 05/20/2016 06:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that > the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. In other words, her obligation of kibud av va'em is to her real father, not to the one who raised her, but this obligation doesn't include putting him on her wedding invitation, for the reason explained later. > Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her > up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the > dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father > of the bride. I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by the father, but not in this case). > Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to > have his name listed on the invitation. [...] the father remarked > that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter > returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz > they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also > needs to participate in buying an apartment. Again, the term "to be considered the father" makes no sense here; can money make someone a father or not a father?! If he's not the father how can any amount suddenly make him one, and why are they haggling over the amount? Rather the issue here was not at all whether he's the father. Of course he is. The issue here was who is the host who is making the wedding and inviting people to it. And that is the person who is paying, not just for the actual affair, but also the expenses that enable the affair to happen, i.e. the apartment, without which there would be no shidduch. It appears from this psak that if he is willing to pay this the bride and her adoptive father may not refuse! And that would be because he is after all the father, and thus has the *right* to host his daughter's wedding, if only he is willing to do so. > R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological > father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the > biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but > when he is alive the biological father is listed. I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! And the fact is that she is forbidden to his relatives, and *permitted* to her adoptive father's relatives. (In fact it used to be common for someone who raised an orphan to arrange a marrriage for him or her with one of his own children. I even know of a case nowadays where this happened.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:18:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:18:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Surely prevention of marriage with (forbidden) relatives is applicable whether the biological father is or is not alive? On 20 May 2016 at 11:02, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in > order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not > alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the > biological father is listed. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 13:00:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:00:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: see http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ and especially http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful for this is also greater. also http://www.lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] The children may be identified when called to the Torah and in formal documents as the son or daughter of those who raised them, and the normal restrictions of *yihud* (which generally allows unsupervised and close contact with only biological parents, siblings and children) is not applicable to adoptive families, whose members interact as a biological family would. This is far more than transporting halakhic forms (like not addressing one?s adoptive parents by their first names) to the adoptive family. It is an expression of a new halakhic reality, so to speak. obviously laws of mourning are different between a biological parent and an adoptive parent Rabbi Soloveitchik insisted that there is a *kiyyum* of the mitzvah of *avelut* even when there is no halakhic obligation to mourn the specific individual. He drew this conclusion from the ruling that ?Where there is a case of a deceased who has left no mourners to be com?forted, ten worthy men should assemble at his placeall seven days of the mourning period and the rest of the people should gather about them [to comfort them]. And if the ten cannot stay on a regular basis, others from the community may replace them.? It was for this reason that the Rav regularly advised children to mourn the adopted parents who had raised them. If there was no * hiyyuv *[obligation]* ha-mitzvah*, there was none-the-less a *kiyyum ha-mitzvah*. BTW a friend of mine told me that there is a psak of R Schacter that if the parent abused the child and it would be a great stress on the child to mourn for the parent then he is exempt from sitting shiva -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 11:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:20:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I found an extended article on how to fix a mazer (tihur mamzerim) from avnei hamakom volume 15 from Rav Oren Zwick As to marrying a shifcha he nrings that minchat yotzchak outlawed it because of dina demalchuta Rab Breish (Chelkat Yaakov) - in a series of letters between them disagrees. In fact it is suggested that in Israel marriage is conducted by the rabbinate and halachically they should be able to allow a shifcha. It is stressed that this is on condition that it be done officially-legally by the Israeli rabbinate. He also discusses other options and ends with a reference to Yevamot 68b and bet shmuel 2:18 in the name os sefer charedim that a mamzer can't live more than 12 months > I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the > original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is > inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by > the father, but not in this case). I am confused. I emphatically stated that anyone who wants to see the original to contact me and I would send it. Why suspect what is written when one can check it yourself The words that R Zilberstein uses are harei she - "avi hakallah" bnidan didan hu ha-abba ha-choreg Obviously the adoptive father is not the "real" father is considered like the real father and is the one who should be listed as the father in the invitation > I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the > father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! Be-kewtuba raui lichtov et shemo shel ha-av ha-amiti hedei she-lo tezei taut u-machshla be-nisue krovim. Umnam be-yetoma kotvim et shemo shel mi she-gidel otah aval ke=she-ha-abba chai yesh lichtov et shemo I again strongly suggest that anyone who wants to challenge my interepation of the psak look at the original and not guess based on his knowledge what 2 major poskim state. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 21:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] ============================================== My general take on this topic is that many halakhists bent over backwards to find solutions to the adoption problems mentioned (e.g. yichud). Perhaps it was due to the need for orphans to find homes or the human drive for childless couples to have families(especially when dealing with non-Jewish adoptions)? I never found much written about the meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times influenced the decisions. 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 Sun May 22 16:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 19:12:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah Message-ID: Pesachim 35a tells us that ?things which can come to chimutz, a person can fulfill his chiyuv of matza with them; this excludes those which come not to chimutz, but to sirchon.? This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: > Lo sochal alav chametz > Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos > Do not eat chametz with it > For seven days you will eat matzos Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. After all, if the pasuk had said, "Do not eat carrots; you must eat beef," would that lead us to conclude that carrots and beef have similar definitions? However, the truth is that the phrases don't *need* to save any logical connection. If Torah Sheb'al Peh says that this is how Torah Sheb'ksav chose to connect the definitions of chametz and matzah, it's just one of many similar cases. (I don't know whether this particular limud is called a "hekesh" or something else, but I hope my point is clear.) So I am not saying that the gemara was wrong for deriving these definitions from that pasuk. What I *AM* asking is why the gemara points to that pasuk, when there is a different pasuk it could have used instead. In my view, there is another pasuk that makes the very same point, but much more clearly, in a very pshat way. Why should we resort to a lomdishe juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: > Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos > Ki lo chametz > Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah > They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza > Because it did not become chametz > Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. How much clearer can it be, presuming that the Author wants a historical narrative, and not a legal text? If the word "ki - because" was missing, my argument would be much weaker, but it is *not* missing, and it is the cornerstone of my argument: It became matza *because* it did not become chametz. Chametz and matza are one and the same, differing only in that one is baked prior to chimutz (which prevents chimutz from happening), and the other does undergo chimutz. If dough does reach chimutz, getting baked later is irrelevant. Baking is relevant only to preventing chimutz, which is what creates matza: "They baked it into matza, because it did not become chametz." But I can't find anyone who explicitly connects Shemos 12:39 to the definitions of chametz and matza. Even if there is some weakness to this pasuk, and Devarim 16:3 is truly stronger, I would think that this would be mentioned in the gemara. Pesachim 35a should have said something like, "And R' Ploni retorted, Why do you cite Devarim, when we already have Shemos? But R' Almoni answers that Shemos is actually weaker because of..." Does anyone know of anything like this? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 00:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend 11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in techiyat hamettim. What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:40:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby Message-ID: The Gemara in Kiddushin (73b) has the following case. 4 women give birth to baby boys in the same house and one is the wife of a Cohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin, and one the wife of a mamzer. The Gemara states that the midwife is believed to say which is the son of the Cohen, which is the son of the Levi, etc. The Ran quoted by the Beis Yosef (Even Haezer Siman 4) states that this is a takana d'rabbanon that min hatorah the midwife is not believed (because it is a davar sheberva which requires 2 kosher witnesses). This brings up the some obvious questions: 1. What did they do before this takana? It is clear that men were not around during childbirth so how was there any yichus? 2. When was this takana made? 3. How could the Torah have such an impractical approach to these matters? There Torah was given to human beings to observe and for thousands of years women gave birth with no men present. 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:56:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: By coincidence a recent daf yomi (kiddushin 72b) discusses the future status of mamzerim. The following is a non-literal translation of an article by R Avihud Shwartz from yeshivat har etzion. Anyone who wishes to see the Hebrew can request me to forward the original. This is not a continuation of the previous discussion. The gemara says that R Yose says that in the future (le-atid le-vo) mamzerim and netinim will be tahor while R Meir disagrees. The gemara followed by Rif and Rosh pasken like R Yose. Tosafot asks why the need for a psak on events that will only occur le-atid le-vo. The Rosh answers that the gemara is talking about a safek mamzer. But even R Yose agree that cannot solve the problem of a certain mamzer. R Yose is teaching that there is no need to distance from safek rmamzers today since even in the future they will not be revealed. Hence, R Yose is teaching a practical halacha for today. The Rashba says the gemara does occasionally pasken on future questions and so takes the gemara literally. He is then left with the question how can the prohibition against marrying a mamzer disappear le-atid lavoh. The Rashba has an amazing answer. In the generation before the Eliyahu the rabbis will allow mamzerim as an emergency measure (horaat shaah) but when the Moshiach comes they will be pasul. So according to the Rashba at the time of the geulah there will be a one time heter allowing known mamzerim. To explain this Rashba R Shwartz that a condition for the geulah is the achdut of the nation. Mamazerut introduces a separation among Jews. Therefore for one generation the nation will have a complete achdut between families. During the "regel" all Jews are chaverim (Chahiga 27) . One explanation is that that during the holiday everyone is assumed to keep the rules of taharah. However another explanation is that during the holiday everyone is consider a chaver as part of achdut of the people. R Yose sees mamzerut as a type of Tumah and as the Moshiach comes close this tumah will be removed. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:19:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:19:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524091930.GB15539@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) : that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. ... : What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down : bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, : chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large : percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" : halacha. Well, since you already are reading this midrashically, how about... Someone who doesn't bow at modim isn't being used literally, but as a description of a kind of ingrate. Mouths the words of thank you, but isn't moved by them. And perhaps the point being made by the Zohar is that kifui tovah can be the first step, the point at which a soul goes off course and ends up -- after a downward spiral through worse offenses -- not being revivable at techiyas hameisim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:34:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:00:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see : http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ : and especially : http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 : In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even : greater... The thing is, though, the conversation before this one, which I am presuming motivated this post, was in particular about kibud av va'eim. Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. : children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises : him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful : for this is also greater. Off topic: When prospective fathers call me asking for advice about adoption, one of my first pieces of advice is that you can only do it right if you're being as selfish about it as any other man looking to become a father. If you are doing it because you can look at the child and see in their behavior and personallity some continuation of yourself into the future, fine. But a child needs parents to grow into a healthy adult, not baalei chessed. And I'm not sure if teaching a child this line of reasoning is healthy. It gets in the way of viewing themselves as part of the family's shalsheles. On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 04:10:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I never found much written about the : meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times : influenced the decisions. I think part of the problem is that much of this has to be done subconsciously. The conditions of the times change the metzi'us about which the poseiq rules. And also the poseiq has to try his best to come up with an answer based on the Torah rather than zeitgeist, but no human being's best will ever fully exclude the mood of their era. So the second people start discussing how the times impact pesaq, the discussion itself will change the answer -- and in ways that add rigidity to halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 03:14:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:14:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> References: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. > But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos > of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? I am answering for R Zilberstein so take my words with a grain of salt. First the thrust of the shiur was on the rights of the adopted parents and not on the mitzva of kibud av ve-em. He thus stressed that the adoptive parents have a right to all decisions (apitropus) on the child and not the genetic parents. In particular they make all the decisions concerning education etc including the wedding. As part of the argument he mentioned the zecher shlomo (and chida) that Avraham owed no kibud to Terach once he handed him over to Nimrod. Thus kibud av disappered (pakah) once Terach abandonded Avraham. Since it was not the topic of the shiur he did not discuss if the mitzvah to honor the adoptive parent was mi-deoraitam derabban or something else. I brought from Rav Melamed that it is "only" because of hakarat hatov but he stressed In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children Of course if the adoptive parents are abusive there is certainly no requirement of kibud or hakarat hatov. > Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there > still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein > that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. >> I again refer to YD 240:18 where the Ramah states that there is no mitzva of kibud av ve-am when the parent is a rasha. I also explicitly brought from R Zilberstein that the halachot of mourning are different and that one is required to sit shiva and say kaddish for a parent who is a rasha including one who abandonded the child and presumably an abusive parent. I also brought from Rav Schachter (second hand) that if sitting shiva for an abusive parent would present psychological problems than the child is not required to sit shiva. I would personally explain RHS that strong psychological pain can be pikuach nefesh and overrides shiva and kaddish which are only derabbanan > I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to > the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would > treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. again look at YD 240:18 with Shach, Taz, Pitchei Teshuva etc -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:31:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:31:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies > are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? > I don't think there is any issue here: babies are issued identity bracelets literally seconds after they are born, long before they leave the delivery room. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:40:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57444BBF.209@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:37 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting > down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than > murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar > large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a > "minor" halacha. I don't know how minor this is. Think about it; we're not talking about someone who never comes to shul, and never hears Modim in the first place. What kind of person comes to shul, hears Modim and knows what it is, and yet doesn't bow? Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion of politics real estate er, the Daf. Yes, definitely the Daf. Even if you're deep in, er, the sugya, so long as you're aware that the chazan is saying Modim, you bow. The kind of person who comes to shul and *doesn't* bow at Modim must have some kind of agenda, like the fellow who says "Modim Modim", or "Al Kan Tzipor...", and thus is a pretty serious sinner. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 06:46:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:46:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: <politics real estate er, the Daf. >> The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Looking at it again Tosafot (appears on 16b) asks the same question that I mentioned that all Jews have a share in the world to come. Nevetheless as I mentioned Kaf HaChaim brings a Zohar that one does lose one share in the world to come for not bowing at modin. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 09:46 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back >> bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion >> of politics real estate er, the Daf. > The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim > in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking > about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:38:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: <> I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 13:47:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:47:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744BDCB.7010207@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:38 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. Not to adopting, but to pretending that the child is not adopted, which was the fashion in the early and middle 20th century. By the '70s this fad had mostly passed, and it became accepted that adopted children need to know the truth from the beginning. > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. > see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 See the last piece, at the end of page 2, by R Eliezerov, which explains the confusion that some people have. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:02:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:02:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> Message-ID: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at > modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:05:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:05:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> Message-ID: <5744C20F.1030206@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 05:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at >> modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. That is clearly not whom the gemara or the zohar means. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 20:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 03:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years >his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years >and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara >literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) > >I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) >that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. >First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in >techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend >11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in >techiyat hamettim. Interesting. Is the Kaf haChaim, and the Zohar, interpreting the gemara in?Bava Kamma 16a? http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41181&st=&pgnum=106 https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%90_%D7%98%D7%96_%D7%91 That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, allegorically, to mean?that those people won't be resurrected? Kol Tuv,Josh Waxman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 03:14:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:14:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: As you know, the question of whether a Bar Mitsva boy continues counting Sefira is the topic of much discussion and Bar Mitzva derashot. Sefardi Poskim tend to assur, Ashkenazi tend to be lenient. But one of the major arguments in favor of a BAR mitsva boy continuing to count is that before Bar Mitzvah he was rabbinically obligated (mi-derabanan) because of Hinnukh. I was recently asked about what to advise a BAT Mitsva girl who has been carefully counting every night - under the same conditions. It would seem that in contradistinction to a minor male, there is no obligation of hinnukh on minor females to count sefira. Indeed, a parent has no obligation of hinnukh on mitsvot that will not be obligatory when the child becomes an adult. Hence, a parent need not train his daughter in mitsvot aseh she-haZeman gramman. See R. Yehoshua Neuwirth, The Halachoth of Educating Children, Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1999) Dinim Kelaliyyim, parag. 2, p. 2; R. Barukh Rakovsky, ha-Katan ve-Hilkhotav, I, ch. 2, no. 7. So I think that - even according to the lenient Ashkenazic sources - it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. But she should definitely continue counting (without a Berakha) because counting is the ikkar mitsva - not the berakha. If someone has sources or solid grounds to be meikeil - I'd be happy and thankful to hear them. Kol Tuv Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 06:48:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:48:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?_May_a_Chassan_May_a_Chassan_who_is_get?= =?windows-1252?q?ting_married_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omerwho_is_getting_mar?= =?windows-1252?q?ried_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omer_shave_earlier_in_the_day?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_on_the_32nd_of_the_Omer=2C_before_shekiah=3F?= Message-ID: <1464184133111.74887@stevens.edu> >From OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a Chassan who is getting married the night of Lag B?Omer shave earlier in the day, on the 32nd of the Omer, before shekiah? What is the halacha concerning relatives and other guests attending the wedding? A. The prevalent custom is that one may get married on the night of Lag B?Omer. The halacha in general regarding shaving is to wait until after sunrise on the morning of Lag B?Omer. Rav Belsky zt?l ruled that the chassan and the fathers of the chassan and kallah may shave on the 32nd day of the Omer before shekiah. Other family members and guests should not shave before shekiah. Rav Belsky zt?l did permit them to bring a shaver to the wedding and shave there after shekiah. (See ???? ????, Volume One, pages 109 ? 110) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 10:24:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:24:17 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] expulsions Message-ID: why could not the Dannites leave the megadef in their midst, what would have been so terrible? it was brought in the name of the Alter of Kelm that you see from here how important to remove bad influence from their midst [and Dan were not considered the cream of the crop]. this may be a source for those that disagree with the tack that removing students from an educational mossad should not be done easily , as pikuach nefesh. the nefesh in question according to the Alter would be the rest of the institution..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 08:44:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:44:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?May_I_listen_to_slow_music_during_sefir?= =?windows-1252?q?as_ha=92omer=3F?= Message-ID: <1464277506499.46892@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May I listen to slow music during sefiras ha?omer? A. Music should not be listened to during sefira whether it is fast or slow, even though slow music is less prone to stimulate one to dance. Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim I:166) questions whether one may listen to music for enjoyment throughout the year, and concludes that although throughout the year there are lenient opinions, but during the period of sefira one must be strict. If one was in a state of moodiness or discontent, Rav Belsky zt?l was of the opinion that even during sefira he may lift his spirits with slow music, provided he does not listen excessively. (See ???? ????, Volume One, p. 106) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 11:32:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:32:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. >> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Yichud%20Prohibition%20-%20Part%201.htm The article does bring other poskim including the LR who were strict. Rav Jachter's conclusion is: Obviously, anyone to whom this issue is relevant should consult his Rav for a ruling. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 14:42:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:42:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160526214223.GA15628@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The : gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: :> Lo sochal alav chametz :> Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos :> Do not eat chametz with it :> For seven days you will eat matzos : Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. But this is derashah, not sevara. : .... Why should we resort to a lomdishe : juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for : us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: :> Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos :> Ki lo chametz :> Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah :> They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza :> Because it did not become chametz :> Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay : Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become : chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* : become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. Except that this is a historical statement, descriptive, not prescritive. Their wheat dough was matzah because it happened not to become chameitz -- for reasons the pasuq wants us to notice. Teshu'as H' keheref ayin. And peshat is a pasuq in chumash like in all of Tanakh is more concerned with Mussar than halakhah. It's not a halakhah book at the expense of being a Mussar book. As they say about ayin tachas ayin, peshat is values, derashah exists to provide the halakhah givien the mapping of those values to a limited reality and limited humans. But does that "ki" mean that the lack of becoming chameitz is a defining feature? Maybe a lack of sirchon would also be good lehalakhah, but didn't come up. (Given how much more available wheat was in Egypt.) "Ki" could refer to sufficient cause, you are assuming the pasuq means necessary cause. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 33rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total Fax: (270) 514-1507 submission to truth, and what results? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 19:23:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:23:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> On 05/26/2016 02:32 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah > > There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. > Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's > forbidden, and that's that. >> > > Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 04:13:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:13:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:21:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Asher Weiss Re: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Despite what I wrote two hours ago, I was just notified by my Brother Dov that he discussed the issue with Rav Asher Weiss Shlita last night at his Thursday night Shiur in Har Nof Jerusalem. Rav Asher holds that as long as there is continuity, the girl can continue counting with a berakha after her bat Mitsva. Yiyasher Kochacha and Shabbat Shalom Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il ________________________________ From: Aryeh Frimer Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:13 PM To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 08:44:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:44:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim Message-ID: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Off line conversation that I'm belatedly moving to Avodah: I asked: Starting at 21:6 (then 21:8, and etc etc.) the phrase "lechem Elokim" is used a number of times. Onkelos translates lechem as korban each time -- which is exactly what one would guess. While my Hebrew isn't great, I couldn't find a single mention of this in my Mikraos G'dolos (just about every mention of that pasuk talks about the first part of the pasuk, about forcing a Kohen to give a get). Perhaps it's just so obvious that lechem means korban here, that it's literally unremarkable. But, still, the use of the word "lechem" seems odd to me. It's as if the Torah is going out of its way to make things sound _more_ anthropomorphic, more primitive, than it needs to. (Granted -- now that I think about it, the phrase "rayach nichoach" also seems gratuitously anthropomorphic -- but: (a) there is some commentary on that phrase; and (b) perhaps we hear "rayach nichoach" so often we're just used to it.) Does anybody have any thoughts on why the Torah, after using the words "korban" or "olah" this entire Sefer, suddenly switches to "lechem" in this perek? R Seth Mandel answered: : From a linguistic point of view, I do not consider the usage remarkable. : This is the House of HQBH, and the qorbanot are His Daily Portion. : The use of the word lechem to describe "portion/allotment" I consider : a perfectly normal, if poetic, term. R MIcha Berger responded: ... It would be interesting to confirm this... Does anyone associate Vayiqra 21 with qorbanos that are forced by the calendar, to the exclusion of chatas, asham, todah, etc...? Does qedushas kohanim have more to do with such qorbanos than others? (And if so, does this relate to which qorbanos were allowed on bamos back in the days of bamos?) Anyone else have any thoughts? (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this significant at all?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 09:11:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:11:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim In-Reply-To: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: <574871A5.80303@sero.name> On 05/27/2016 11:44 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with > "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this > significant at all?) We say twice a day "Vaydaber YKVK ... es korboni *lachmi* le'ishai, rei'ach nichochi". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 11:52:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160527185244.GB24209@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:48:27AM +0000, Joshua Waxman via Avodah wrote: : That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is : located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, : allegorically, to mean that those people won't be resurrected? Teaser for my post But the name of the city was "Luz" originally by micha ? [15 Kislev '765] - Fri, Dec 16, 2005 And he [Ya'aqov] called the name of that place Beis-el, but the name of the city was Luz originally. - Bereishis 28:19 Luz, the original name for Beis-el, is apparently the name of a kind of tree, usually translated "chestnut". It's one of the kinds of wood from which Ya'aqov avinu made sticks for the sheep and goats to look at... Bereishis Rabba (69:8) discusses the amazing properties of living in the city of Luz: * They always told the truth. * No one in the city died. When people got old and tired, they needed to move out for nature to take its course. * The city was never conquered by Sancheirev, and wasn't destroyed by Nevuchadnetzar at the end of the first commonwealth... Luz is also the name of a special bone in the body, where the skull and spine meet. Two medrashim associate the luz bone with Hadrian y"sh.... Luz seems particularly connected with Yaiaqov, the one who renames it. First, his service of G-d centers around emes, truth, the middah exemplified by the citizens of Luz. He uses the luz sticks... ... The mishnah says "derekh eretz qodmah laTorah -- proper behavior in society is a prerequisite to Torah." Our aggaditos and midrashim seem to converge on underscoring that point. Luz is the city of truth, it has the permanence of truth both territorially and in the lifespans of its inhabitants. And it's truth, the personality trait about which Yaiaqov centers his service of Hashem, which determines techiyas hameisim. All of these medrashim refer to Luz, to the trait. When referring to applying the pursuit of truth to Torah study or worshipping Hashem, then we progress from Luz to Beis-el. The stick shows the influence of environment... The bone luz is situated just where the mind connects to the body. It is therefore, in a very real sense, "beis keil", G-d's "home" in this world. Ya'aqov builds a circle of stones in which to sleep at this spot, which -- as R' Hirsch notes ad loc -- is the first home of Israel. He gets a vision of a ladder between heaven and earth, an externalized luz bone between mind and body. Once one has the foundation of "Luz", one has the proper personality and attitude to provide some solidity in time and in social context. Then one is capable of building that derekh eretz into Torah, making their soul a house of G-d. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 34th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 and maintain a stable relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 29 05:36:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 08:36:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> References: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160529123638.GB24648@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:23:15PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>> There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. :>> Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's :>> forbidden, and that's that. :> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. : No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you : were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. OTOH, given the size of the observant American community loyal to RMF's pesaqim, anything he says can't simply be dismissed as "rare" either. RYBS was meiqil as well. And, FWIW, was R' Zvi Flaum, a talmid of R' Dovid Lifshitz's - now RY of Shaarei Tzion, oour LOR back when we adopted and the question first arose. I am also curious... RMMS pasqened? Didn't he generally delegate that role to others, leaving himself as head mashpia / moreh derekh, rather than moreh hora'ah? Did this somehow become an emotionally charged machloqes, like eruv for some reason tends to? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 36th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in Fax: (270) 514-1507 being a stable and reliable partner? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 05:25:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:25:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: R. Aryeh Frimer posits that a girl who becomes Bat Mizva during sefira should not continue counting with a bracha after becoming bat mitzva, since, unlike a boy, she had no mitzva to count as a minor because of chinuch. I find this very counterintuitive; on the contrary, it seems to me that a girl has more reason to continue counting with a bracha than a boy. A boy upon becoming bar-mitzva during sefira goes from a status of non-chiyuv (obligation) to chiyuv; one may question whether what he counted in a state of non-chiyuv "counts" when he enters a state of chiyuv. On this point, some poskim say that there was a chiyuv all along, at least rabbinically, so no fundamental change took place; some disagree. A girl, on the other hand, has no chiyuv either before or after her bar mitzva; in this respect, nothing changed at all when she became bat mitzva. Thus, if the girl has been making a bracha on sefira throughout the sefira period, in keeping with Ashkenazi practice, it seems to me that she should continue to make a bracha on sefira after becoming bat mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:42:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:42:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas Message-ID: my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 08:34:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:34:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parshah Dual Dichotomy 5776 Message-ID: <1464622469992.18876@stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6863 For many of us in the know, as well as to the surprise of anyone who might be thinking of traveling to or from Eretz Yisrael, say anytime from after Pesach until Shabbos Chazon, right before Tisha B'Av, something is off. I am referring to the weekly parshah, which would not be the same regularly scheduled one in Chutz La'aretz as it is in Eretz Yisrael. Truthfully, this type of dichotomy actually happens not so infrequently, as it essentially occurs whenever the last day of a Yom Tov falls on Shabbos. In Chutz La'aretz where Yom Tov Sheini is halachically mandated,[1] a Yom Tov Krias HaTorah is publicly leined, yet, in Eretz Yisrael (unless by specific Chutznik minyanim[2]) the Krias HaTorah of the next scheduled parshah is read. This puts Eretz Yisrael a parshah ahead until the rest of the world soon 'catches up', by an upcoming potential double-parshah, which each would be read separately in Eretz Yisrael. See the above URL for much more about this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:18:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jack Stroh via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 18:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> References: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Message-ID: <20160531013511.GA21014@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 02:18:52PM -0400, Jack Stroh via Avodah wrote: : Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with : Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the : disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. Back a step... Our current leining schedule post-dates Chazal, the standardization ceoms from the geonim. And originally it was in use in Bavel. In EY, 3 or 3-1/2 year leining systems were more common. So the systme was designed for chu"l; the parshios chu"l shuls aren't doubling up aren't supposed to be doubled. It's Israel that slipped out of proper alignment with geonic intent. So the question really is why doesn't Israel fall back into line and minimize their drift from the original geonic schedule. Well, this year there are no doubled parshios for them to split until Matos-Masei -- just in time to realign Devarim with the 9 days. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 02:17:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:17:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children Message-ID: <> <> I agree with Micha. I again bring a list of prominent poskim who agree with RMF so it certainly is not a solitary opinion. I would strongly argue that in practice most people follow the lenient opinion. The article I previously quoted brought those to disagreed and concluded that one should check it out with his local rabbi. He certainly did not dismiss the lenient opinion. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. Rav Nachum Rabinovitch (the prominent Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivat Hesder of Maaleh Adumim) is cited in Techumin 10:317 by Rav Azariah Berzon as agreeing with the aforementioned Poskim who permit adoptive parents to have Yichud with their adoptive children. Rav Rabinovitch notes that Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:08:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:08:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160531180845.GA12478@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:17:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Rabinovitch notes that : Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. R' Zundel Salant says that it was the zekhus of adopting the children of those who died in makas choshekh that we were redeemed from Mitzrayim. Since we are obligated to remember yetzi'as Mitzrayim, I can't call it "time immemorial", but since our birth as a nation, certainly. >From : Chamushim Hashem brought the nation around, via the path of the desert, the Red Sea; and the Children of Israel arose chamushim (to be defined) from the Land of Egypt. - Shemos 13:8 ... and the Jews enthusiastically departed from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Unqelus (ad loc) ... with good deeds... - Jerusalem Targum (ad loc) ... one in five. -Tanchuma (Warsaw ed. #1), Mechilta ... and the Jews departed with five infants from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Yonasan (ad loc) Rashi defines "chamushim as "armed", which underlies the Targumim of Unqelus and Yerushalmi. Armed in a spiritual sense, prepared with good deeds. Another definition would be from chameish, five, leading to the medrash concluding that only 1/5 of the Jewish were saved from Egypt. Rashi adds that the other 4/5 of the population died in Egypt during the plague of darkness. These were the people who didn't merit redemption; those who believed in the Egyptian paganism and wanted to stay. Deriving chamushim from the number five is also the point of departure for the Targum Yonsan's "departed with five infants." But the medrash on Shemos, describing the Egypt experience, told us that we had six children at a time. How then can the Targum Yonasan here mean that every Jew left with five children, as though this smaller number is something that should impress us? The Be'er Yoseif therefore believes the naive read of the Targum Yonasan is incorrect. Instead, the Be'er Yoseif explains all these targumim in light of each other. The word chamushim was chosen not despite the ambiguity, but because of all its connotations. Four fifths of the Jewish people died rather than being saved. But what about their children? The youth didn't deserve death, even if they agreed with their parents -- as children, they aren't accountable or punishable for their crimes. The Be'er Yoseif explains that this means that each of the 600,000 men left Egypt had to have left with five families of children -- his own, and those of four families left orphaned by this punishment. Far more than the six-at-a-time that were born to them. This is not only the intent of the Targum Yonasan, but also, raising others' children the "good deeds" of the Jerusalem Targum, as well as the "zerizus", the enthusiasm, of the Targum Unqelus. They were prepared and surrounded by the mitzvah of taking in these children in need. Today we think of adoption as something someone does when they r"l can't have children of their own. However, in light of this devar Torah, we see that this mitzvah played a central role in defining us as a people. According to the Be'er Yosef, it is the merit of adopting orphans that rendered us ready for the redemption from Egypt! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 09:15:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ie in ghettoized Europe , the Accursed Wandering Jew was only the killer of the 'saviour'; not much better in Moslem Middle East. In Modern Times, it can't refer to the million chassidim , to whom isolationism is the ideal , not to mention theologies of the value of the gentile. In Litvish models, ideally the Jew should be confined to the beis medrash , and the spouse 'kvoodah pnima'. It is only the lack of Manna that interferes and forces bedieved one out of the ghetto. The OTD Jews of the last 200 yrs who have impacted every walk of life and every class of endeavor in academia , commerce , culture and liberal polity can not have been what chazal had in mind. The Israel model is the most vilified political entity on Earth. If it's only a messianic concept , then it has nothing to do with the Jews , only the Messiah. so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:40:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:40:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? > > SNIP > > so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, > practically. > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or they need work in this area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 03:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:25:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/31/2016 9:40 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in > Yishayahu. It is a real concept. No, it is not. > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? The phrase ohr l'goyim doesn't exist. There are three verses where something similar exists. Isaiah 49:6 says that Hashem has placed us l'ohr goyim. Isaiah 42:6 also says that Hashem placed us l'ohr goyim. And Isaiah 60:3 says that nations will walk in our light. There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us. And it's not for any specific generation, I don't think, but all of them. We are the example. Whenever I hear "ohr l'goyim" it irks me, because it's such a mistake. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> References: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160601165119.GB20066@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:25:31PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The : former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the : nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among : nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us.... This is clearly peshat in Yeshaiah 60:3, "beholkhu goyim le'oreikh..." But "le'or goyim", in 42:6 and 49:6... I would have said something close to the reverse; to me le'or goyim sounds more like an imperative. An or lagoyim is a descriptive construction. Yeshaiah would be saying that we are light for the nations. L'or goyim is more prescriptive, we are "to provide light for nations". Not as a light, but in to be one. And it's up to us to actually illuminate. BTW, according to Rashi (42:6) those goyim are the shevatim, not other nations. And according the Metzudas David, it's a messianic prophecy, not an imperative before-hand. The thing is, we're obligated to serve as a nation of kohanim in the here-and-now regardless of Yeshaiah. So I see this as a discussion of peshat in the pesuqim, with no pragmatic difference to hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 39th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliable person? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:22:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:22:27 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it >> practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. > It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then > show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other > nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or > they need work in this area. my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of humanity in all generations; except possibly recent times, when those clearly NOT living a halachic life are seen by some at least to have been a source of blessing... furthermore, we fast on the day the Bible was translated, so we can't even say that the other Abrahamic religions is the explanation, since they become in a sense Fruit of a poisonous tree, to use the legal analogy From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 02:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:58:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: I am gratified that my understanding that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during the sefira period can continue to count with a bracha was also expressed to RAFrimer by RMH. Unlike RAFrimer, I do not think that this this constitutes a "fundamental misunderstanding" of brachot women make on time-bound mitzvoth, according to the Rema and standard Ashkenazic practice. If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her chiyuv-level not having changed. I am completely unsurprised that Rav Asher Weiss paskened that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during sefira can continue counting with a bracha, based on his understanding of the mitzvah of sefirat haomer, as appears in Minchat Asher Vayikra chapter 51. R. Asher asks a series of questions that indicate that sefirat haomer is different from other mitzvoth which are performed verbally (see there). He then explains as follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting avodat Hashem. Shofar, lulav, matza are examples of the former. Biur chametz and maakeh are examples of the latter. We make brachot on both categories of mitzvot, but there are differences between them. Sefirat Haomer is a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the mitzvah itself; the avodaat Hashem of sfirat haomer is knowing the count every day, not saying the words themselves. Saying the words is the action by which the desired result is achieved (unlike other verbal mitzvoth like kriyat shma and hallel in which saying the words themselves is avodat Hashem). R. Asher explained elsewhere that mitzvot in which the tozaa is the mitzvah do not require kavana , which is why someone who answers the question "what's the count tonight?" without intending to perform the mitzvah of sefira is nevertheless considered to have performed the mitzvah. In sefira, when a day is counted, when the result of the counting has been achieved (the person knows, by counting, what day it is), the mitzvah has been done. My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) , even if strictly he is not obligated; when he becomes a gadol, he is considered not to have missed any days, and can continue to count with a bracha. As Rav Asher explicitly paskened, this applies to a k'tana as well. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 04:36:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:36:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25c18a21-7bfc-78f4-f9a0-30ba738263a7@zahav.net.il> To give a metaphor: If the machine generating the light is working improperly, the light could be dangerous and it needs to be sent out for repair. Without getting into the question of how the machine broke down (God directing or us choosing to break it), it is clear that if we aren't doing the job, a tikkun is required Ben On 6/1/2016 6:22 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged > history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of > humanity in all generations; From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 07:33:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:33:30 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>>It shows we or they need work in this area. ---- meila i can understand blaming us . but to blame 'they' , the goyim is saying they refused to hear the gospel..... >>>>>>If the machine generating the light is working improperly ---- or properly working light, just that the potential buyers threw it in garbage I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to listen to our message... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:21:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: I am responding on avodah to some remarks on arevim > So if the health minister happens to be ... anti-vaxx ..., suddenly the > halacha has to turn around?! And after the next election it turns around > again?! Look at what happened in Israel two years ago, when German > was health minister and decided to end fluoridation. Now Litzman is > restarting it. Was everyone supposed to change their minds in those two > years, or accept that the truth changed, just because the government did?! This completely misunderstands the role of government rules. Besides dina de-malchuta we learn that if not for the government we would live in anarchy everyone decides for themselves what is best. Medieval philosophers and commentaries debate why one must listen to the government. Opinions range from divine rights to the king can kick you out to more modern theories that the citizens accept the rule by staying in the country and especially by accepting privileges from the government like the use of roads, army, schools etc. In consonance with the Mishna we listen to the government because without it there is chaos. The government specifies safety laws, traffic laws, tries thieves and murderers, has laws against sexual and drug abuse There is nothing in these theories about the government always being right. Obviously, governments are made from people who make decisions and different countries have different laws some more liberal and some more conservative. However in each country one is required by HALACHA to follow the government regulations (as long as they don't conflict with halacha). If the regulations change over time then yes the observant Jew much change his behavior just as he changes when doctors change their views or when a bet din changes their views. When batei dinim in different locales disagree then each community must follow their local bet din. Pointing out that a different bet din disagrees doesn;t matter one must follow the local bet din. Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. ------------------------- In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Some possibilites that have been offered include 1) There is a mitzvat aseh to listen to the rabbis 2) It is based on logic similar to above, otherwise it leads to chaos He went into a side discussion of the status of sevara (deoraita?) and a Rav Akiva Eiger. 3) The rabbis are smarter than us and so we should listen. RMA points out that there is an intrinsic problem. If the reason is too good then we are back to question that it becomes a deoraita. If it is weak then listening to the rabbis becomes wishy-washy, ie if circumstances change, if one disagrees with their reasoning etc. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 09:49:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603165041.NPMS27913.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> R S Newman has posed the question in a provocatively interesting way. Thanks! Musing out loud, is it possible that the concept applies to Torah/Torah values in addition to its people? For example, doesn't the Rambam offer that Xtianity and Islam, both "offshoots", if you will, of Judaism, have moved the world's population (at least partially, in the case of some part of Xtianity) away from A"Z? As a second data point, R Jonathan Sacks often points out how many of the world's ideas are rooted in Torah (e.g., equality (even the King!) before the law, which, in turn, gave rise to (because it was a necessary pre-condition of) democracy, etc.). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 11:04:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: <133b75.a02d7da.44832097@aol.com> ohr lagoyim when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ....so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. >>>> It began long before Chazal, in the time of Avraham Avinu. (The concept, not the exact words.) And Yitzchak and Yakov. "All the nations of the world will be blessed through you." For the incredible moral and intellectual influence the Jews have had on the rest of the world throughout history, see Thomas Cahill's book, *The Gifts of the Jews* and read Dennis Prager's review of the book in *First Things* which summarizes the book's main points. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/11/002-cahills-gift Hirsch in the introduction to his commentary on Tehillim shows that Dovid Hamelech meant for Sefer Tehillim to be used as a book of prayer by all the nations of the world and indeed, this has come to pass, with Tehillim having been translated into practically every language in the world. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:22:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:22:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:37:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:33:30AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . : so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to : listen to our message... As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those words exist anyway? RBW assumes that it does, and therefore if we are unhappy with the rate of progress, we should asume the light needs fixing, not that its users are neglecting it. But I have no doubt that our influence has had a central role in the progress of civilization. Whether or not we consciously worked at it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 11:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:20:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier For a detailed answer see http://rabbikaganoff.com/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:11:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> References: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57539853.9030809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:22 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the > : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? > > The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? The first 11 chapters of Devarim is a tochacha. But it's not curses, which is what we usually associate with the term. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > words exist anyway? In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; that people will come to EY to do business with Shevet Zevulun, and while they're there they will do some touristing and visit Y'm to see what is to be seen, and be so impressed that they'll accept the 7 mitzvos and bring zivchei tzedek. So there's no missionising, no outreach, just us being ourselves, and those who are already prone to be attracted to the light will be attracted. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 09:04:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:04:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160605160452.GA11606@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:20:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. : The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier : For a detailed answer see : http://rabbikaganoff.com/ With all due respect to RYK, what I said earlier is historically correct: the currently leining system was designed by geonim for Bavel. So chu"l leining for the 8th of Pesach instead of Acharei-Mos was correct scheduling. It is Israel that got ahead. So the major question is why does EY wait until Matos Mas'ei to split a double parashah and fall back into sync with the design? And that's easy -- because all the double parshios before then are already split! If you want to ask why the ge'onim have us splitting all the double parshios, yes, that has to do with timing the tochachah to be 2 Shabbasos before Shavuos. But that's not a why we didn't catch up to EY yet thing -- catching up was never a goal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 05:45:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 08:45:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wrote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? There are multiple r Avigdor miller shiurim where he demonstrates clearly that Jewish ideas have slowly entered the goyishe (western) world thru us. Where Jews did not live, our teachings have yet to have the same effect (far east, Africa, etc) This is also the message of r Aryeh Kaplan in 'If You Were God' http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48970646.html See r ken Spiro's 12 part series world perfect where he demonstrates that this has occurred http://www.aish.com/sem/wp/ Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c learn from us) Its true we spent most of our history just trying to survive, but by osmosis (and more) our ideas and ideals have molded and raised the level of humanity as a whole Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 10:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:09:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> References: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> Message-ID: <57545CC9.3050301@sero.name> On 06/05/2016 08:45 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient > madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be > dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c > learn from us) The gemara says that "Israel was only exiled among the nations so that converts should be added to them". Note the passive form. Even in galus we were not expected to actively recruit gerim, but rather to live among the nations so that those who are naturally attracted to our way of life would be able to find us and avail themselves of an option that they would otherwise never know about. Not even a symbolic hishtadlus is expected of us; we are simply to do our own thing, but in a place where potential gerim will see us. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 12:46:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:46:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those : >words exist anyway? : : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; ... The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an imperative to put in conscious effort as well. My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to avodas Hashem. Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat in "le'or goyim". There is also a possibility that le'or goyim is a messianic prophecy. Like And the same questions could be raised with "Halkhu amim rabim... Ki miTzion teitzei Sorah..." De facto, it will? We must act in a way that causes Torah to be spread from Zion? Now? Le'asid lavo? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 13:00:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:00:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitzva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: In discussing the case of a girl who became bat mitzva in the course of sefira, it is instructive to consider the analysis of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik (the Rov) of the Bahag's opinion on sefirat haomer (see Harrei Kedem Volume II chapter 112). The position of the Bahag is that one who does not count one day of omer does not make a bracha on subsequent days The Rov did not accept the widely-held opinion that the Bahag holds that there is one mitzva to count all 49 days. Rather, each day of sefira is a separate mitzva. However, on each day, there is a "din mesuyam", a particular law that the previous days have been counted. If this is not true, one is counting not sequentially, but with skipping, not the count the Torah specified. Skipping a day invalidates each and every subsequent day, not the totality of the count. As is well known, according to the Bahag, one who forgot to count at night counts during the day without a bracha, but may subsequently count with a bracha. The Rov asked: according to the Bahag, does one fulfill the mitzva of sefira during the day? If so, why doesn't one make a bracha? If not, why may one continue counting subsequent days with a bracha? The Rov held that the Bahag held like Rabbeinu Tam that the mitzva of sefira is only at night, and when one counts during the day he does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all. However, when counting during the day, one does a "maase sefira", an act of counting, even if he does not perform "mitzvat sefira". This maase sefira makes his counting connected, and he can continue counting with a bracha, although there was one day on which he did not perform the mitzva of sefira at all. According to the Bahag, one who forgot to count the 49th night gains nothing by counting the following day, since one does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all during the day. Counting during the day is not in itself a mitzva, but only helps to enable counting subsequent days with a bracha. Even if one were to say that a katan (minor) does not have a chiyyuv (obligation) to count sefira, and a katan that counts has not performed the mitzva of sefira, nevertheless his count is a "maase sefira", an act of counting. In this way the count of a minor is similar to counting during the day; it is a masse sefira which enables one to continue counting with a bracha, even when the katan becomes a gadol. Clearly, this applies to a minor girl exactly as it does to a minor boy. The Rov noted that even if one were to know that he will not be able to count every night until Shavuot, he counts every night with a bracha until he misses, since each night's count is a separate mitzva, and skipping a future night will not invalidate a previous night's mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 23:49:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:49:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 6/5/2016 10:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > : >words exist anyway? > : > : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; > ... > > The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort > and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an > imperative to put in conscious effort as well. > > My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a > statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being > a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? And I think the answer is "no". > So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to > shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim > either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to > avodas Hashem. Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the nations of the world. > Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. > [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, > hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. And again, no chiyuv here. > > Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... > > It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that > is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat > in "le'or goyim". No one is saying it isn't a good thing. But we prioritize, and whether a thing is an obligation or not goes into the calculation of those priorities. This isn't an obligation. To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 19:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 22:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ain machlokess bo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5b76f9d9-80e4-c222-c9e6-881437eb0fb9@gmail.com> In //Dynamics of Dispute/,/ I develop the idea that the Rambam, when he says that there is no //machlokess/ /b'payrush mekubal miSinai/,/ he does not mean that there were no disputes *about* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. He means that there was no disagreeing *against* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. In note 12 (p. 82) I wrote that in addition to indications that this is so from other writings of the Rambam and their applications to talmudic sources, The //Mevo HaTalmud//, attributed to Shmuel HaNaggid, indicates this definition of the word //machlokess// as well. I have just found that the Meiri on Avos 5:19, regarding a different subject, explicitly gives this definition to the word //machlokess//, explicitly negating it in the other sense. He writes: It seems to me that [the use of the word] ''machlokess'' attaches only to the one who responds to the first [speaker]. I.e. ...when a second person responds [to the first] and says, ''What you say is proper to do is improper, or what you taught is wrong,'' this [response] is the ''machlokess.''...the "machlokess" only refers to one of the two sides, the one that responds to the first. Another way to put it: Sometimes the word //machlokess/ /refers to an opposing opinion, not to two or more opposing opinions. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 05:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:56:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> >> No one is saying it isn't a good thing. ..To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. R Avigdor miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 09:22:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:22:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. ------ the only problem i have with their approach is that , had the Jewish people been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies their job was basically done---since a billion xtians then took over , and a billion moslems after that . the direct interaction of jews w goyim in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to have minimal direct impact . where jews have major impact in modern times , in science , entertainment , ,media etc are ways that clearly were not only not what Scripture had in mind, but in many cases directly contravening Tradition.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 04:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:56:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R > Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the > requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo > tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban > becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita > is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 12:49:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:49:09AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to :> shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim :> either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to :> avodas Hashem. : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the : nations of the world. So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a tzivui? :> Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. : Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. (I just noticed this tied to "mamlekhes kohanim" quite smoothly.) We also see from hilkhas geneivas aku"m that chilul hasheim and qiddush hasheim involve whether we ch"v distance aku"m from AYH or merit to draw them closer. So I guess we could add qiddush hasheim and avoiding chilul among the list of potetial imperatives that say le'or goyim in more clearly tzivui terms. Going back to the parshanus of le'or goyim... RET posted on Areivim in 2012 (quoted then by RnCL, with permission at , quoting IE and the Radaq (49:6) that le'or goyim refers to Yeshaiah's nevu'ah 00 the light is the nations seeing that his nevu'ah was fulfilled. And thus not about the Jewish people at all. To which RnCL replied citing the Rashi (as I already wrote, in one place he takes "goyim" to mean shevatim, and thus uplifting other Jews) and then quotes the other Radaq (42:6) and translated: > And so you would be also l'or goyim like it says "And nations shall > walk to/in your light -v'helchu goyim l'orech" [Yeshiyahu 60:3 - where > it is pretty clear that it is the nation Israel being talked about] > and the light is the Torah that shall go out to them from Tzion. And then translating Metzudas David (ad loc): > L'or goyim - to light the eyes of all the nations to know that Hashem > hu haElokim. Closing with her own thesis: > And indeed I think that it is the other pasuk quoted by the Radak, ie > v'helchu goyim l'orech that is the one that is the real source for the > common understanding which is usually labelled as Or l'goyim. That pasuk > is quoted all over the place (unlike l'or goyim), for example in dozens > of places in midrash raba, tanchuma, pesikta d'rav kahana etc And a lot > of the commentary in the various midrashic sources involves analogies > between the shemen zayis that lights the Beis HaMikdash and Yisrael who > lights the world -eg Shemos Raba which goes on to say and so our fathers > were called zayis because they gave light to all with their emunah. > > That is, to my mind, the concept which we understand to be or l'goyim is > unquestionably there in the sources - it is just generally drawn from a > psuk that is much more of a mouthful (Yeshiyahu 60:3). L'Or goyim, does, > it would seem according to all the classic commentators, mean a light to > the nations, as we would understand it, but, at least on one of the two > pasukim where it is used, it is understood as referring to Isaiah himself, > not the Jews in general (but note that it is clearly a good thing, > and high praise of Isaiah, that he should be considered this). And, > as so often seems to be the case (and as discussed with tikun olam) > the phrase which tends to roll off the lips in the common parlance is > not the strictly correct biblical terminology, but the one that sort of > sounds right to the ear of the layperson to get to the concept of which > they are aware. To continue her thought to focus on 60:3, I see BB 75a explains vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as a messianic prophecy, and someting HBH will do, not even hilkhisa demeshichasa. Metzudas David: "As to say, from you they will learn the ways of Hashem and you will light their eyes." Also, not clearly a tzivui. The Tanya 1:36 takes "vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as messianic, and thus not a tzivui for the here-and-now The Malbim takes the pasuq as prophetic and descriptive, linking the seifa, "yeilekhu leneged zarchakha" to "ukhvodo alayikh yra'eh" in the previous pasuq. Okay, given 60:2, we could presume 60:3 isn't imperative either. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:38:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:38:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> References: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> Message-ID: <20160606203815.GB983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:56:44AM -0400, M Cohen wrote: : R Avigdor Miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out : and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own : backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Maybe in theory we should clean up our own backyard first, but... Anyone in kiruv would question whether they are all that separable. My own most inspiring Shabbasos were in NCSY, experiencing it with people for whom it was one of their first few attempts to observe Shabbos. Similarly, anyone who has given a shiur will tell you that the topics they prepared to teach others are those they know best. And even during the shiur -- umitalmidai yoseir mikulam. Maybe if we invested effort being a mamlekhes kohanim, we would be better at avoiding messing up our own backyard too. And for a Hirschain perspective... The Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch by Rabbi Mayer Schiller http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/humanisim_rsrh.pdf Jewish Action (Summer 5759/1981) pp. 21-26. Vol.49, No. 3 On pg 24 (PDF pg 4) he quotes 19 Letters where RSRH talks about a world in which every Jew would be a mutely eloquent example and teacher of universal righteousness and universal love; if thus the dispersed of Israel were to show themselves everywhere on earth as the glorious priests of God and pure humanity... RSRH makes a duty to set an example. Not to actively teachm but not to ignore the example we set either. And then there's the Semag (Asei 74), which I translated for : I already expounded to the exiled from Jerusalem who are in Spain and the other Roman exiles that now that the exile has gone on far too long, it is appropriate for Israel to separate from the vanities of the world and grab onto the signet of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is truth, and not to lie neither to Jew nor to gentile. Not to mislead them in any way. To sanctify themselves even in what is permitted to them, as it says, "The remnant of Israel do not commit sin, do not speak lies, and one won't find a false tongue in their mouths." (Tzefaniah 3:13) And when Hashem comes to save them, the nations will say, "It was done justly, for they are a people of truth and the Torah of truth is in their mouths." But if they act with the gentiles with trickery, they will say, "See what the Holy One, blessed be He did, that chose for His portion thieves and con-men." Also, it says, "I will plant her [the Jewish People] for myself in the land..." (Hosheia 2:25) A person doesn't plant a kur [of seed] but to produce numerous kurim. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, planted Israel among the lands so that converts will join them (Pesachim 87b) and every time that they conduct themselves with trickery, who will attach to them? It seems that unless we act in a way that makes it obvious to non-Jews that our redemption would be just, the Semag expects us to continue to languish here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:39:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> On 06/06/2016 03:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I > : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the > : nations of the world. > > So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > tzivui? 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. 2) What is the origin of This idea you keep pushing, that "mamlechet kohanim" has some connection to outreach to anyone, let alone nochrim? 2a)Since when is that a kohen's job? 2b) Pshat in "kohanim" is princes, as in "uvnei David kohanim" (Rashi) This whole idea is at most, again, a nice drasha for a rov in shul, or for a mussar sefer, but certainly not relevant to halacha. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:43:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:43:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.)" What you suggested is what the Ran says, however, the Ramban explicitly rejects this idea. R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? Therefore, he explains that by dinim d'rabbanan what is not important is the actual mitzva act, but the fact that you listened to the Chachamim and did not rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:51:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I referenced who explains the Ramabam. R' Meir Simcha makes a very different assumption. He assumes that every d'rabbanan is NOT necessarily the ratzon hashem and therefore by d'rabbanans what is important is that you listen to the chachamim and not rebel, the actual action is not as important ayen sham. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 12:42:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:42:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160607194229.GA27374@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:22:53AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : the only problem i have with their approach is that, had the Jewish people : been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies : their job was basically done -- since a billion xtians then took over, : and a billion moslems after that. the direct interaction of jews w goyim : in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to Unless you think our presence had a cultural impact that explains things like why the doctrine of trinity evolved and why they don't go on Crusades anymore. On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a :> tzivui? : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. Targum Yonasan ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be called on to serve. Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. Kehunah is a duty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:22:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> On 6/7/2016 11:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:39:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <575730E4.7050400@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :>So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > :>tzivui? > : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a > : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be > : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; > : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. > Targum Yonasan You mean, of course, "Yonasan", i.e. a version of Targum Yerushalmi that a printer mistakenly attributed to Yonasan. But of course we all know that, I hope. I just expected to see the scare quotes. > ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be > called on to serve. A kohen's shimush is the avodah in the BHMK, not anything else. It's (1) a promise, not a tzivuy or a nevuah; and (2) has nothing to do with "service" to anyone. > Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many > hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against > this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in > inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job > by definition. *If* it's a job, it's a job of avodah BHMK, and the pasuk is promising that if you do as I tell you then I will award you this prestigious job. But Rashi says the *pshat* here is not a job at all, but a status. He has to say that, because al pi pshat non-bechorim were *never* intended to be kohanim meshamshim. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:01:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573627.6060306@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" > as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem > lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". 1. I think you got that backwards. Ve'atem tihyu is the prat, and Eileh had'varim is the klal. 2. I fail to see the point you're deriving from this. How does this make it a tzivuy of any kind? However you read it, it's still a promise, a proposed deal, not a command. > As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. > Kehunah is a duty. Meyuchad is not a duty, it's a status. What one is meyuchad *for* can be a duty, as here (except for the problem that non-bechorim were never intended to do avodah), but the yichud is not a duty. "Mekudeshes" doesn't mean "obligated in the duties of a wife", it's the status of being dedicated to one man, though that status by its nature *comes* with those obligations. And "harei at mekudeshes li" is certainly not a command to do those things that a wife is obligated to do for her husband. It's predicated on an understanding that she *will* do them, but it's not itself any kind of command. But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:40:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 05:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries > : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. > > Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 23:02:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:02:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: The Megilla describes how Ruth sneaks in to where Boaz is sleeping and lies down at his feet and that Boaz woke up in the middle of the night to find her there. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (19b) states that Boaz had a bigger Nisayon with Ruth then Yosef had with Potifer's wife because Ruth was single and tehora (see Rashi there). I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? I would bet that the answer for everyone (male) reading this is no. The thought would not even cross our mind. So why does the Gemara state that this was a tremendous nisayon for Boaz? It's not like there is no yetzer hara for arrayos today, there certainly is, just look around at what is going on in the world around us and even within the frum community. And yet, IMHO the average person would not see the situation described in the Megilla as a nisayon at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:09:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:09:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. Ben On 6/8/2016 8:02 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you > woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) > lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 13:01:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:01:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up Message-ID: in this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work in the long run. i wonder if the claim is true, and if so, how could there be a hetter for such a thing---multiples are riskier than singletons; i can't imagine that a posek could allow that jsut for budgetary reasons... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:23:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:23:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > > Even if that is true, why does that make it a big nisayon for boaz? It's either an issur drabbanan or doraysa for him to sleep with her. Why would he be tempted? He also happened to be an old man. If a woman came up to you and made it clear that she wants to sleep with you would you be tempted? Would that be a tremendous nisayon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:42:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:42:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] samael Message-ID: not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger of doing so? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:26:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:26:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] samael In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589BAA.7090905@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 03:42 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have > never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger > of doing so? One is not supposed to pronounce the name of *any* angel that isn't also a human name. As far as I know this is a universally-accepted rule. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 14:55:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:55:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608215544.GA2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:13:32AM +0000, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: : RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she : wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, : and never will be Chayav... I am wondering if the chiyuv of chinukh to follow minhagim may be more binding than any minhag itself. If she is counting because that's what women in her eidah do, poerhaps her post-bat mitzvah chiyuv is *less*. : To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here : regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman : geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, : Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh : haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a.] a : woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is : a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives : heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant : berakhot... And because "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" is a statement about HQBH commanding the tzibur, so there is no sheqer inan einah metzuvah ve'osah saying "vetzivanu". For that matter, how does making a berakhah on a mitzvah performed for chinukh work? And returning to the case of an edah where women are nohagos to count the omer, an Ashkenaziah would make a berakhah on a minhag too. On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote: : If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a : bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah : (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able : to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her : chiyuv-level not having changed. If in all cases, she is making a berakhah on the tzibur's command, and perhaps the over la'asiyasah is what triggers why say the berakhah now rather than some other time. I think the list of sources RAF provides speak more to what constitutes a trigger for saying the berakhah than what the berakhah is on. And lemaaseh, chinukh, minhag and einah metzuvah ve'osah are each sufficient for Ashkenazios. : ... [R Asher Weis] then explains as : follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action : (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the : result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to : achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting : avodat Hashem... Sounds like a sibling to the Brisker gavra vs cheftzah. Whether the gavra has to do the pe'ulah, or the tzotza'ah must take effect onthew cheftzah ... : My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a : mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the : mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a : maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is : definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan : counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira : (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) ... Yeah, but it's not only the child counting, it's the child's mind which knows the count. Kind of like the non-Jew made the maaqah, but on his own home! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:25:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:25:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the : government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not : knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. Many accuse the AhS of writing things that would to appeal to the govt censor. But not to distort the din, only in cases where he thought the readership would realize he was obviously doing so. Which means that the AhS can't be used as a ra'ayah, because those who disagree will simply say he *obviously* couldn't have meant it. But the idea that communal policy halakhah should follow the NIH (or your country's equivalent) recommendations because the alternative is chaos appears compelling. Assuming the poseiq things the gov't is being honest. : In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael : Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to : listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees : and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita... Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on their audience. Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently includes conflicting laws. : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo sasur cannot apply. Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 : R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to : explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim : d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do : the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that : whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we : keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. : : This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I : referenced who explains the Ramabam.... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 min. in). As is my norm, I add bits here and there. ... But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, neither to the left nor to the right"? 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between Torah and rabbinic law. 2- [My own addition] R' Shimon Shkop allows us to say the same thing, 180deg off. In Shaarei Yosher, he asks the question of why a sefeiq sefeiqah (a doubt added upon a second doubt) is ruled leniently. The Rashba (Shu"t 1:401) holds it's a variant on the notion of relying on majority... Rav Shimon explains sefeiq sefeiqa on other grounds, following the Rambam. Who said that a doubt in Torah law must be ruled stringently? It wasn't the Torah, it is rabbinic! ... So, rather than the Ramban's limiting the specific prohibition to only cases where we are certain about the realia, it's possible that we could limit the rabbinic enactment of ruling stringently on Torah law to have only been made about the other 612 laws. With the same consequent rationale. 3- Rav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (Meshekh Chokhmah, Devarim 17:11): A Torahitic prohibition describes something that is inherently wrong. The universe is made such that combining meat and milk is a problem (metu'af, meshuqatz). A rabbinic prohibition lacks that reality. Chicken and milk isn't inherently damaging, it is that it leads to error through habit or accident. Therefore, one needn't the same care when dealing with rabbinic extension as when dealing with the damaging or refining thing itself. 4- Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Qunterus Divrei Soferim): Of course there is a reality to rabbinic statements. It is all revealed from the Creator, all the Ratzon Hashem yisbarakh (the Will of the Creator, blessed be He). The difference between a derabbanan and a de'oraisa is the explicitness. Therefore it is less sacred, and violation involves lesser realities. A difference of quantity, not quality. Rabbi Rakeffet links Rav Elchanan's position to his belief in da'as Torah; both imply a belief that there is revelation of Hashem's Will today through the rabbis. 5- Shulchan Arukh haRav [another addition not in the lecture]: In a rare case of where the Shulchan Arukh haRav discusses the purpose of a law rather than just codifying practice, he discusses the significance of yom tov sheini shel galiyos, the observance of a second day of Yom Tov outside of Israel. He explains that there is no time in the heavenly realms. The supernal "Pesach" is not associated with any particular time. Hashem made a connection between that Pesach and the 15th of Nissan, giving us a worldly manifestation within time. The SAhR continues that the 16th of Nissan is connected to the very same supernal Pesach. The seder on the 2nd night is a manifestation of the same metaphysical reality. What differs is who draws down the connection, not what it is we are connected to. Perhaps this is generalizable to rabbinic legislation in general. This would result in an opinion similar to Rav Elchanan's in that it gives a reality to rabbinic law, rather than their just being pragmatics for how to keep Torah law. However, the opinions are also quite different in that it makes the rabbinic legislator a metaphysical engineer, building the reality, rather than a conduit of Hashem's revelation of that reality. And, to continue R' Rakeffet's thought, Chassidic attachment to the Tzaddiq is not the same as the Yeshiva World's notion da'as Torah. 6- Seifer Me'iras Einayim (SM"A, Ch"M 67, #2): The berakhah that Hashem gives to those who keep shemittah , that they will have sufficient crops in the 6th year for the 6th, 7th and 8th years, is only when shemittah is mandatory by Torah law. (I.e. when the majority of the tribes are in their lands, and therefore there is a yoveil every 50th year.) Today, someone who keeps rabbinic shemittah gets no such guarantees. 7- Chazon Ish (Deshevi'is 18, #4): The blessing did apply during the 2nd Temple and after its destruction, for the heavenly court fulfills based on what's decreed down below. Rabbi Rakeffet identifies the SMA with the position of the Meshekh Chokhmah, and the Chazon Ish with R' Elchanan Wassermnn's. To my mind, it's possible that his position is more like the Shulchan Arukh haRav. However, this explains why the Chazon Ish was so willing to be stringent when it came to keeping shemittah. Had he felt that the observance didn't come with insurance from the A-lmighty, perhaps he would have ruled leniently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:31:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589CB8.8080308@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 04:01 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > in this documentary > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is > claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few > babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work > in the long run. That only makes sense for women who are planning a particular size of family, and use birth control the rest of the time. I don't see how it could possibly work for women who never use birth control, and whose "plan" is to have as many children as Hashem sends. How could having more than one at a time reduce the total number of pregnancies? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 16:18:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:18:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160608231854.GC16414@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:40:42PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? : : "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. : For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* : anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". Which is why it's intransitive. I included the "Li" in my quote because the prepositional phrase was part of my point. "Lekhahein" is not the verb of being a kohein or being made a kohein, but doing a kohein's job. Also, Yeshaiah 61:10, "kechasan yekhahein pe'eir". Even any case, I found this in the Seforno on the pasuq: And with this you will be a segulah from among them [referring to "vehyisem li segulah" in the previous pasuq]. Because you will be a "mamlekhes kohanim" to understand and teach to the entire human species that all will call in Hashem's name and to serve Him "with one shoulder"... Which not only makes my diqduq point, he clealy speaks of a duty to actively instruct the world -- ROS writes "lehoros lekhol hamin ha'enoshi". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:23:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:23:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: R' Zev Zero wrote: > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand experiences with the job, too. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:50:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:50:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Authorial Programs Message-ID: I've been leading a chaburah studying the Minchat Chinuch. It's quite interesting trying to figure out why he dives into some topics in detail and others he says would be too long, or this isn't the place to discuss detail or he's "not holding" in it right now. Makes me wonder how many mechabrim have a conscious, programmatic approach versus a subconscious approach or no unifying theme. Anyone aware of any analysis? 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 Wed Jun 8 22:30:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:30:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* > a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" > on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) > The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only an asmachta. > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not > : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be > what > : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara > that > : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. > If > : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... > > His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This > would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on > their audience. > > Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently > includes conflicting laws. > That is not the Meshech Chochmas point. His point is that we as human beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the action. > : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why > : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the > : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, > : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast > : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the > : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. > > This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs > to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo > sasur cannot apply. > This is not the Ran it is the meshech chochma explaining the Rambam > Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq > de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. > ... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps > shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore > came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. > > > R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of > Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 > min. in). As is my norm, > I add bits here and there. > ... > But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic > law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, > neither to the left nor to the right"? > > 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made > the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the > case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between > Torah and rabbinic law. > This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the opinion of the Ran. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 22:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:34:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger nisayon then Yosef faced? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:22:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" is only d'rabanan. In other words, if one has a legitimate safek about whether he did a d'Oraisa, then it is a smart idea and/or a rabbinic obligation to resolve that safek, but he is not required by the Torah to do so. I don't know if the above is correct, but if it is then it could be very relevant to the current discussion. For example, a safek d'rabanan might be a sort of "sfeik sfeika", and therefore go l'kula. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 07:31:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:31:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cholov Stam Outside of the US Message-ID: <1465482641540.74929@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/hezpyyn Q: I am planning a vacation to some foreign countries, and I assume that since I drink cholov stam, I can drink the milk in the countries I visit. I wanted to double-check with you, just in case. (A consumer's question) A: It's a good thing that you contacted us! The heter of cholov stam, which was explained in the previous installment of Halcha Yomis, only pertains to countries which have adequate dairy regulations. The OU's poskim have ruled that European Union nations and other countries with well-enforced dairy regulations qualify for the heter of cholov stam. In countries where such regulations are lacking or are poorly enforced, milk remains prohibited as cholov akum and requires on-site kashrus supervision in order to be permissible. To inquire about a specific destination please contact the OU via kosherq at ou.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:43:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AAB7.5050807@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 09:22 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" > is only d'rabanan. See Shev Shmaatsa at great length on this question. I don't remember his conclusion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 09:24:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:24:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160609162401.GB31542@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowlderized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Second, being gadol hador just makes it worse. Kol hagadol mechaveiro yitzro gadol heimenu. (An idea with way too much evidence in support in the newspapers. Not the drequency of the stories, it's still man-bites-dog. But the things religious people and other role models are caught doing that most of us aren't tempted to do....) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AA0E.60404@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 05:23 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Zero wrote: > > > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. > > I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. > > Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. > "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" > > Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand > experiences with the job, too. It was expected that all of Shevet Levi would devote themselves to learning, since they had nothing else to do, and since they got in that position in the first place mostly by dint of having already been the Torah-learning class in Mitzrayim (which role they got simply by staying in the beis medrash when everyone else ran out to do their civic duty) it was natural that they would continue. Thus it was expected that they would be prominent in the Sanhedrin ("uvasa el hacohanim haleviyim") and "yoru mishpatecha leyaacov". But there was no requirement on any individual Cohen or Levi to do so; they were given land for farming around each of their cities, and by the late 2nd bayis it appears that most cohanim, or at least a large proportion of them, were amei ha'aretz, and this did not make them less Cohanim. From this I conclude that Torah is not part of the job, but rather something to do when you're *not* on the job. The actual job of kehuna was a well-paid sinecure that Hashem gave them so they would have the time to do this other thing on their own, much as one is supposed to let a Talmid Chacham sell his goods first in the market, so he can get out of there and back to his "hobby". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:08:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:08:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Message-ID: <000001d1c250$098a3600$1c9ea200$@actcom.net.il> Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. She was not a stranger accosting him on the street, she was not a work colleague (with whom there are certain professional boundaries) nor was she the girl at the checkout counter. (Platonic relationships had not been invented yet-yes, I'm being sarcastic. There is probably no such thing as a truly platonic relationship between a straight man and a straight woman, which is why we are enjoined to be tznu'im. En apotropus le'arayot, remember?) His own wife had died a couple of months before (at the start of the barley harvest) which probably meant he was lonely and certainly meant that involvement with Rut would not have been an emotional betrayal of his wife. It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. It was highly unlikely that anyone would have known about a one-time liaison between them, so there would have been no hillul haShem, and Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 07:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:30:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, Some want to distinguish between different types of safek 1) safek in the :metziut" 2) safek in the din 3) machloket poskim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 10:25:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:25:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] temimos re: last day of shavuos Message-ID: <20160610172550.NHHT21830.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> I was doing some learning with a Kollel guy in a chabura about s'firas ha'omer, and I asked RSM's famous question, pitting "tosafos yom tov" vs the minhag that the Taz mentions of waiting until the end of the 49th day to count because of "temimos." The Rav thought it was a great question, and he took it back to his Rosh HaKollel, who, among other things asked: if this is such a good kashya, why does nobody even bring it up for 200 years after the Taz? Quite "coincidentally", he ran into a 32-page packet, just produced by BMG in Lakewood, that is on this very question. So, for your interest and/or Shavous study, see , or https://www.dropbox.com/s/ig0jxw2ye3xlpjy/%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99.pdf?dl=0 (you can download it) Good shabbos and a gutten yuntiff! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 13:36:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160610203636.GA30587@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:30:15PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the : Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, .... This was discussed earlier on this thread, right before RAM's question: Me: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#03 the other RMB: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#08 :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 03:24:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:24:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20160614102429.GA26569@aishdas.org> I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that post-modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever know to be objectively true. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs... I think post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. However, I can know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. So, the folk there pointed me to Rav Shagar (Rav Shimon Gershon Rosenberg), a DL postmodern baal machashavah. Along the way, someone mentioned R/Dr Alan Brill's blog post of notes he made to himself teaching R Shagar's works. or . To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true to Ayin. Given their advice, and the hopes that I could find common language with the post-modern among my own children, I spent part of the "3 day yom tov" with R' Shagar. Given my opening rejection in post-modernism, as well as a couple of comments made by Dr Brill, I must admit I may not have been fair. Perhaps one of his fans is lurking on list and wants to clear up wht I misunderstood. As R/Dr Brill put it "The very question" in the prior sentence, not quoted, "shows that Shagar is treating postmodernism as an ism to adopt rather than the current condition of our lives like the prior existential-psychological era that we did not choice but were embedded within." R Shagar builds a case for the condition of believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. An inability to believe that something is objectively true into the belief in of an objective Ayin. Help? 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 Tue Jun 14 14:10:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:10:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 16:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:00:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <598c06.3f27511.4491e6a3@aol.com> [1] From: Micha Berger via Avodah Subject: Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? [--R' Marty Bluke] I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowdlerized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org [2] From: Simi Peters via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. .... It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. ....Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters [3] From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah Subject: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth >>I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her?<<[--R' Marty Bluke] As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. .... So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love...lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana >>>>> [1] Over the years I too have wondered about the use of the word "margalosav" instead of "raglosav" and came to a similar conclusion to RMB's, that is, since "margolios" are pearls, the pasuk might be talking about the family jewels. However I did not assume that Rus /actually/ uncovered Boaz in that way but rather, that uncovering his feet was a way to hint to him that he should uncover something else -- not that night, but in due course. That he should act as her goel, that he should marry her and have children with her. [2] Yes, Boaz liked her and admired her but when Chazal say that the evening was a great nisayon for him they are clearly saying that on that night, he was attracted to her and had the desire and opportunity to sin. The nisayon was much more than "he didn't want to hurt her feelings." And she wasn't so "lonely and socially isolated"-- she could easily have married a much younger man, as Boaz says when he speaks of her great chessed in approaching him instead of going after the bachurim. [3] The idea that he was "deeply in love with her" is a stretch but yes, he clearly had feelings for her. Until that night I would say his feelings were mainly protective and paternal -- he always called her "biti, my daughter" -- but that night, under those circumstances, a yetzer hara was aroused that does not seem to have been there before. After all, months had passed and he had not suggested marriage, which was the very reason Naomi resorted to such an unconventional strategy. [4] I want to add one more point, which is that not all old men are the same. R' MBluke started this thread by asking why this should be such a nisayon when Boaz was "the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man." That the Gadol Hador could be overtaken by illicit desires we already know from many previous incidents involving Yehuda, Shimshon, Dovid Hamelech and others. As for old men, many lose desire as well as the ability to act on their desires, but we know that this was not the case with Boaz from the very fact that he did indeed father a child with Rus. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 15:49:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:30:47AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* :> a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" :> on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) : The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo : tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only : an asmachta. And later: :> 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made :> the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the :> case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between :> Torah and rabbinic law. : This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and : then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the : opinion of the Ran. What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling you why the pasuq "lo sasur" is not an azahara, and not a complete denial that the power to make a derabanan is from the Torah. As the Ramban puts it, shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on the pasuq. Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: :>: R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating :>: explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not :>: necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what :>: Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that :>: a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If :>: every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... ... : His point is that we as human : beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when : making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the : act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to : their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the : action. I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects their legislation. Or, ein hatzibur yalhol la'amod bam, which is the category all the MC's examples demonstrate. In either case, he talks about the difference between a deOraisa, where one might ch"v eat chazir because of a safeiq and a derabbanan where, as you put it "the value is in listening to their words". It is from that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. 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 Tue Jun 14 16:24:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:24:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160614232420.GB5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:23am CEST, R Arie Folger quoted Yechezqeil ben Buzi haKohein (44:23): : Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. : "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and : profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" RAYK (MiDevar Shor 16) writes that this is why we're called "beni bekhori Yisrael". The kehunah of the bekhor, to serve as either shaliach haMaqom to the family, or their shaliach before Him. See or . Also see Mal'akhei 2:7, for a similar definition of kehunah (WRT benei Aharon): Ki sifsei khohein yishmeru da'as veSorah yebaqshu mipihu.... RAYK's point is much like the LR's words when launchind the Noachide campaign: A particular task [is] to educate and to encourage the observance of the Seven Laws among all people. The religious tolerance of today, and the trend towards greater freedom, gives us the unique opportunity to enhance widespread observance of these laws. For it is by adherence to these laws, which are in and of themselves an expression of Divine goodness, that all humankind is united and bound by a common moral responsibility to our Creator. This unity promotes peace and harmony among all people, thereby achieving the ultimate good. As the Psalmist said: "How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 04:39:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:39:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon wrote: > So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was > deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it > only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his > wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world > to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at > his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 05:25:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:25:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I agree that "deeply in love" is probably be too much - but I think it is quite plausible that he was falling in love with her, whether he realized it before that night or not. It certainly makes it much easier to understand the nisayon if that is the case. And even if romantic love is much more emphasized in our time and culture than many others, I find it unlikely that it did not exist at all in Biblical times. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 13:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:44:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> I said that ?Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her.? This is not a claim that he was ?in love with her? (nusah 21st century) and is not the projection of a Western conception of Romantic love (nusah 14th century). Men and women have always been attracted to each other and loved each other which has, b?H, ensured the survival of the human race. Yitzhak avinu is described as loving Rivka imenu (after marriage); Yaakov avinu is described as loving Rahel imenu and Mikhal bat Shaul is described as loving David (in both cases before marriage. What is being described is an emotion, not an action.) And while Shir haShirim is allegorical, the allegory describes a profound, intense and sensual love. Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. Hazal do not find strange the idea that an old man might have sexual feeling and reactions. (Consider their description of David and Avishag in the presence of Batsheva.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From: Marty Bluke [mailto:marty.bluke at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:40 PM To: Ilana Elzufon Cc: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group ; Simi Peters Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon > wrote: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 23:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:39:55PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us : projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a : situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". When it comes to Yaaqov and Rachel, we find even more explicit description of a couple who who romantically in love. "Vaya'avod Yaaqov beRacheil 7 shanim, vayihyu be'einav kayamim achachdim be'ahavaso osahh". I think that academic claims of how much the human condition has changed over the millennia need to be checked against our belief that while TSBP evolves over time, halakhah does its redemptive work for generation after generation. Yes, many things have changed. The industrialist who relates to time with the linear instruments of a clock and day planner experiences something very different than the farmer's cycles of day and night and of annual seasons. Both of which are very different than the post-telecom experience of time which is dominated by events to respond to (phone, email, text/IM), more so than a preplanned schedule. But far more stays the same than would make for good PhD theses. 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 Jun 15 23:38:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:38:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. A ra'ayah for the Ramban is Yevamos 61a, which says that zenus (eg WRT marrying a kohein) is relations between two people who are not allowed to marry. Not all two people who aren't actually married. The Rambam (lav 355) cites the Sifra, Qedoshim 77. However, the Sifra inside distinguishes between being mechalel one's daughter lesheim zenus vs not lesheim zenus. So I don't get it. 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 Thu Jun 16 01:36:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:36:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They > try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak > metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". Truthfully, I never understood that whole story. Avraham was very well known generally and certainly by Avimelech and it was common knowledge that Avraham had a "miracle" son at the age of 100 but no daughters. How could this ruse have possible worked? Additionally, how could Yitzchak and Rivka have been meshamesh bayom where someone could see them? In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came after he married her and brought her into his tent. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Simi Peters wrote: > Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud > with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not > have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: >: The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >: any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >: malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. Even the Ramban who says that there is no technical issur d'oraysa, would probably declare this kind of behaviour is naval birshus hatorah and certainly not what the Gadol Hador should be doing. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 05:47:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:47:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gemara narrative Message-ID: <23bc4e6f392f4404bbfbd7d994e281a8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you are learning gemara and you come to a give and take where the hava amina seems strange (e.g. maakot 14a where the gemaras first assumes the rabbanan learn a din from lchaleik yatzah and ask where does R' Yitzchak learn it from. Gemara answers from a different pasuk and then asks why don't the rabbanan learn it from there. the answer is ein haci nami?! -- so why record the whole misattribution of reason, and how did they know/not know) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 01:47:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:47:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling > Ramban puts it, > shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah > aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma > lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav > As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power > to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on > the pasuq. > Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that > following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu > bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With your formulation that question still arises. > Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: ... >: His point is that we as human >: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when >: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the >: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to >: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the >: action. > I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el > Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects > their legislation. If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 08:10:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:10:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616151039.GF25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:47:01AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: :> As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power :> to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on :> the pasuq. :> Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that :> following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu :> bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. : The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on : lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With : your formulation that question still arises. With a mitzvah de'oraisa, oso lav is deOraisa. We do not cook meat with milk because of a derashah from a pasuq that is specifically about oso lav -- basar bechalav. With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav. (Earlier version had "bachaleiv imo", but mentioning bird milk seems too silly even for an imaginary pasuq.) I find the question cleanly -- and to my thinking, intuitively -- avoided. AISI, my read of the Ramban is an intuitive take on the chiluq. :> Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: : ... :>: His point is that we as human :>: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when :>: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the :>: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to :>: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the :>: action. :> I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el :> Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects :> their legislation. : If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. As I said, cart-and-horse. The causality is that the rejection is being offered "in response" (kevayakhol) to the law. Not that the law is to be rejected because they failed to respond to His Will. Yes, whether A causes B or B causes A, you still end up with both. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:07:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:07:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, : the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came : after he married her and brought her into his tent. I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" in differing ways. 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 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:12:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:12:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> What are the pragmatic reasons? In particular what happens when the reason for the derabbanan no longer exists. Is there a difference on the origin of the derabbanan? One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:58:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:58:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:12:28PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos :> as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans :> which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. : What are the pragmatic reasons? Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. OTOH, a gezeirah is pragmatic -- nothing happenms to you for vioolating it. The whole thing is a means of preventing ending up committing a real sin. Is there power to lighting a menorah of Chanukah, or did Chazal just have to pick /something/ to standardize how people fulfil the general deOraisa of commemorating a neis? Second day yom tov nowadays, does it connect to some supernal koakh, as the SA haRav says? Or is it a way to keep alive memory that the calendar ought to be al pi re'iyah? : In particular what happens when the reason : for the derabbanan no longer exists. The fact that the consumer is totally disconnected from shechitah and kashering nowadays might have rendered the gezeira of owf bechalav superfluous. People have little reason to confuse the rules of one with the other. But even if it's true that the reason stated in the gemara no longer exists, would anyone would say it is therefore no longer in force? Even though the motive is pragmatic., Is this baserd on the idea that we have to be chosheshim for unstated reasons and those may not be pragmatic? What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:10:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:10:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did sleep together. I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. Ben ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah > : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get > : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:07:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:07:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> On 06/16/2016 03:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >> : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >> : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. >> >> Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. > In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did > sleep together.I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they did more than that. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:18:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. > > One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual > damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of > that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or > psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite > taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. > If one assumes that the only problem is rebellion like the netivot then milk in poultry has no spiritual damage (the problem is gavra not cheftza) > > > : In particular what happens when the > reason > : for the derabbanan no longer exists. > > What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out > any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all > to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. > Not all takanot are to protect a deoraita. In any case the original question was why we are obligated by these takanot > > : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic > : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists > > Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention > anyway. > Not all kinyanim. More importantly not every monrtary takanah in shas has to do with kinyanim. There are loads of takanot for the good of commerce. In the change from an agragrian society to a business society to a high tech society much is no longer relevant -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 01:00:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:00:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:08 PM > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, >: the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came >: after he married her and brought her into his tent. > I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. > In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in > love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in > particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" > in differing ways. Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman (40 years old, according to Hazal). Rut is a lonely woman. She knows that she is a social pariah, looked upon with suspicion as a Moabite and not likely to bask in the social glow of Naomi's connections because Naomi abandoned them all during the famine and has very little social capital herself. This is why she tells Naomi that she will go gleaning where they will let her--she's expecting to be thrown out of some places. This is also part of the reason Boaz tells her to stay in his field--he knows the social climate of his town. And Naomi is extremely surprised that Rut has come back with so much grain; it means that someone has helped her--not something Naomi expected under the circumstances. Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). The halakha was still in dispute well into the lifetime of David (Yevamot). Tov (aka Ploni Almoni) is practically in a panic when he refuses the marriage to Rut--he wants the field, but no strings attached "pen ash'hit et nahalati." Only Boaz has the guts to champion Rut's cause because he has the authority to do so, has the social clout to do so, he cares about her, and he is touched by her trust in him and her courage in coming to speak to him at the goren. Rut's acceptance into society only comes with her marriage to Boaz and Naomi's rehabilitation with her neighbors only comes with the birth of Oved. [Email #2 -micha] I believe that 'margelotav' is like 'merashotav' (Bereshit 28:11). The 'mem' is not part of the shoresh and I don't think it is a pun. It may be an oblique reference to halitza and, by extension, to yibum, a delicate way of indicating that, while what Naomi wants for Rut is not technically yibum, it is the yibum-like 'hakamat shem be'nahala'. See the perush of the Malbim on the mitzvah of yibum, where he compares the mitzvah to the yibum-like story of Yehuda and Tamar on the one hand, and Rut and Boaz on the other. When a man says to a woman, "You could marry anybody. Why have you picked me?" that is a compliment, not necessarily a statement of fact. Part of what impresses Boaz about what Rut has done is that she is willing to marry an old man when that goes against the nature of things. As Hazal say on this pasuk, a woman would prefer to marry a young, poor man rather than an old, rich man (gold diggers aside). Rut has set aside her natural inclinations in order to do hesed for her mother-in-law. The words may also be read as an expression of Boaz's sense of gratitude and wonder in finding his one-in-a- million woman (and Rut is indeed exceptional) especially at a time in his life when he did not expect to marry again. When Boaz encounters Rut he has just gotten up from shiva for his wife. Either way, Boaz is not commenting on Rut's bountiful marriage prospects, which are pretty much non-existent (as I argued in the previous post.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 05:18:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:18:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: RnSP: Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as > the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her > mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite > and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because > it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly > idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). > Does Boaz's idealism extend to not quite grasping how different his attitude towards Rut is from everyone else's? His response when she comes to the goren seems to indicate that he had assumed she had many marriage options from among the younger men. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:04:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:04:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> Message-ID: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. Ben On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > > It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same > bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they > did > more than that. > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:57:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> On 06/17/2016 09:04 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Ben > > On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> >> It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same >> bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they >> did more than that. > Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira > it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? Yes, exactly. > That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. No, it doesn't. It has no connection whatsoever to that machlokes, and I'm astonished that you see a connection. *Everyone* agrees that there is no issur mid'oraisa on a man and woman sharing a bed, even if she's *definitely* a niddah, let alone if it's only a possibility. Everyone agrees that nowadays it's assur mid'rabanan, even if she's only possibly a niddah. Everyone also agrees that nowadays there's an issur yichud even if she's definitely *not* a niddah. None of this has any connection to the machlokes about what level of issur is involved in an unmarried couple having sex. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 07:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 17 11:03:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! Message-ID: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise thought of on our own. He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: 1. A town has a single shochet. A younger shochet wants to move in to town with the latest "shochet" technology -- whatever that is. The point is that he thinks he can provide his services more efficiently and at less cost to the community. In this case, the gemara tells us (al pi this rav-writer) that the beis din of the town can decide that the town can't support the competition, and weigh the fact that the older shochet might be put out of business, etc. I.e., the beis din has a lot of room to enforce a non-competitive monopoly here. 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- competition that might provide a better product is more important than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. The point that this writer was making, again, is that this distinction is not something we might have thought on our own. I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 12:47:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 22:47:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of the wheat harvest.) So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters -----Original Message----- From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 5:13 PM To: Rn Simi Peters ; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Marty Bluke ; Rn Toby Katz Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 14:01:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:01:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> Message-ID: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same >> gezira. > > Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:39:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I'm wondering if you considered the possibility that "lo bashamayim hee" might teach us that their legislation IS His will, by definition. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 14:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:35:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom _______________________________________________ It's complex! Enjoy http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:23:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allen Gerstl via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 70 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 R' Sholom Simon wrote: > 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a > teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks > he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage > competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out > of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- > competition that might provide a better product is more important > than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. . . . > > I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they > all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! > > I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this > idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Please see http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html The above issue is discussed at about footnote 22 (about three quarters of the way down in the article) and the Gemorah cited is Baba Batra 21b-22a I recall a similar question coming before the late Rav Gedaliah Felder, the posek of Toronto and that he told a group of us participating in a shiur that he gave. He had ruled as above. KT Eliyahu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:17:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:17:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> On 06/18/2016 05:01 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >>> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. >> >> Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > > That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping > in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate > any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion > about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Sorry, you're contradicting the very Taz you're invoking. He says *explicitly* that the issue he's discussing is being in the same bed, not anything else. Because as we all know it's forbidden for a man to be in the same bed as a niddah, even if they don't touch each other. And *that* is the question the Taz asks about Boaz and Ruth. If she was a niddah then how could they be in the same bed? And he answers that the gezera had not yet been made, so she wasn't a niddah. The same answer explains how Yehuda and Tamar could have sex; the gezera that would make her a niddah hadn't yet been enacted. The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything more into it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:03:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:03:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I believe it's a Chazon Ish. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > thought of on our own. > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:45:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: <20160619034555.GA2854@aishdas.org> Anyone interested in our perrennial about minhag avos and minhag hamaqom would likely be interested in R' David Brofsky's Teasers: ... Individual Customs The Torah teaches that in addition to the obligations and prohibitions imposed by the Torah, an individual has the ability to create personal obligations (Vayikra 5:4) or prohibitions (Bemidbar 30:3), known as nedarim and shevuot ... Family Customs As we shall see below, the Talmud teaches that one is also obligated to observe the customs of one's locality (minhag ha-makom), even if one leaves the place, until permanently relocating in another place. In addition to observing the custom of one's "place," is there a halakhically binding category of minhag avot, according to which one would be obligated to follow the customs of one's family? ... Local or Communal Customs As mentioned above, the Talmud (Pesachim 50a) teaches that one is obligated to observe the "minhag ha-makom", local custom. This obligation, as we shall see, is incumbent upon the residents of that place. Where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Passover until midday one may do [work]; where it is the custom not to do [work], one may not do [work]. ... Minhag and Pesak Halakhah In addition to being bound by local extra-halakhic customs, the Talmud teaches that if it is customary in a certain place to follow a specific halakhic view, that halakhic opinion becomes binding. For example, the Gemara[39] relates: ... Gut Voch! -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 Sun Jun 19 03:33:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:33:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and other differences between biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. <> what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to protect deoraisa laws. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 02:25:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 12:25:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> References: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:27 AM, wrote: > > > In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field > until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three > months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer > until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..* > That raises a whole other set of questions, namely when and how was Rus misgayer? Rashi at the beginning of the Megila claims that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women and Rus was only megayer later. Others claim that it can't be that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women so it must be that they were megayer them. The Bach for example states that Rus was megayer to marry at the beginning and then later was megayer a second time lshem shamayim. R' Shternbuch in Moadim Uzmanim claims that they were minors and therefore when they came of age could be moche and therefore Rus was megayer a second time (ayen sham). Therefore it is pretty difficult to tie the 3 months into the geirus. In any case the din of waiting 3 months is a din drabbanan of havchana, that you should be able to tell the difference between a child conceived as a non-Jew versus a child conceived as a Jew. For all we know this din drabbanan had not yet been formulated in the days of Boaz and therefore is irrelevant. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 21:27:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:27:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> In a message dated 6/18/2016 3:48:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, familyp2 at actcom.net.il writes: So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters >>>> In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:16:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:16:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160619121630.GC24863@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:47:45PM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley : harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they : won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end : of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of : the wheat harvest.) ... I thought "ad kelos se'ir hase'orim uqetzir hachitim" referred to the end of the overlap time. Which is how I got such a tight estimate. You appear to be reading it "until the end of the barley harvest, [and then beyond, until] the end of the wheat harvest." Which, despite needing the bracketed insertion, is quite plausible. But not the assumption I had been working with. In any case, even in a matter of months, we would still be talking about romantic love. To my mind, any couple in love before the love that that grows out of building a life together are experiencing romantic love. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:27:47AM -0400, RnTK wrote: : In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field : until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months : because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she : can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) The harvest season isn't three months, even according to RnSP's understanding of the pasuq. And that taqanah derabbanan almost certainly didn't exist yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160619120740.GB24863@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 01:33:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to :> obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH :> said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav : : The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and : other differences between : biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and : milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. At this point our topic is broader than that. We are back one step at whether lo sasur is a derashah or an asmachta. Yes, if every derabbanan is "lo sasur", then we need to ask about safeiq derabbanan lequlah. But if not, what is the source of their authority-- REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" Which then raised the question of whether following chakhamim actually is living according to the design of the world, as REW holds, or :> What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out :> any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all :> to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to : protect deoraisa laws. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. 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 Sun Jun 19 05:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:37:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:21:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> Message-ID: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing before marrying a woman. When people get married, they don't just sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Ben On 6/19/2016 5:17 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth > did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything > more into it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: < What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. > I am not claiming anything metaphysical. It just seems to me that not all rabbinical decrees are to help a deoraisa. I am certainly not baki enough to go through every rabbinical law but certainly some others include eruvin, most importantly almost all berachot, davening (certainly according to those that disagree with Rambam), shevat brachot. As I said before there are loads of decrees in monetary matters that are not just nezikin including prozbul, takanat hashuk, bar metzra. Again I would have to review the 3 Babas to come up with a more detailed list. Even in hilchot shabbat/yomtov we have candle lighting and other aspects of oneg, much of the seder, -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 21:15:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> <576766B2.50408@sero.name> Message-ID: <57676DE5.2000701@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 11:44 PM, I wrote: > On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the >> halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing >> before marrying a woman. > > There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. I just realised my meaning may not have been completely plain. What I meant by this is that they can have a chuppas niddah. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 20:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the > halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing > before marrying a woman. There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. The halacha in question is that when a woman agrees to get married she is presumed to have become a niddah, and must therefore count 7 days like any niddah. (Note that it's not the proposal that triggers this, nor is it her verbal acceptance, but her internal decision to accept it.) The Taz quotes the Maggid Mishneh that this is midrabanan, and says that this explains two problems we would have if it were mid'oraisa. One is Yehuda and Tamar: *not* how they could have sex, but how she could have told him that she was tehora, when by definition she has just become temeiah. The second was Boaz and Ruth: how they could have slept in the same bed. He says this *explicitly* so I don't understand how anyone can possibly misunderstand it. > When people get married, they don't just > sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and > finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Again, you are contradicting the very Taz you are quoting. He says in so many words that the problem we would have with Boaz and Ruth, if this halacha were mid'oraisa, is that she entered his bed. How can you claim that's not his concern, when he says it is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 11:42:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160620184259.GC12092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:37:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" : which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa I think quite the reverse. His saying that we follow the rabbis because not heading their advice would be stupid does not actually make the derabbanan mandatory. And I still think the Ramban is saying that the power of chazal to legislate is from lo sasur, but that does not elevate the product of their legislation to deOraisa. Thus his repeated reference to "zeh halav" in distinction to "'lo sasur' keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah". This makes a strong contrast to R' Mesamyah's position, "sheyeish bikhlal lav de-'lo sasur' kol mah shhu midivrei chakhamim..." One might employ parallel logic to REW's shitah, if it proves necessary. Remember that the Ramban's central problem isn't the same as the one which led us to this discussion. He is defending the idea that "lo sasur" is one of the 613, but (unlike the Behag) the particular mitzvos derabbanan are not each counted among them. Safeiq derabbanan lequlah is tangential to his main point, and more noted than explained. Also, I repeatedly contrasted the Meshekh Chokhmah's position (Devarim 17:11), that mitzvos derabbanan are "pragmatic", meaning the iqar is obedience, as opposed to conforming to Retzon Hashem, which I characterized as having metaphysical effect - or avoiding negtive effects. And since they're about obedience, borderline cases like safeiq derabbanan which are not rebellious can be meiqil, we do not have to worry about spiritual damage. If the mitzvah had inherent value aside from obedience, safeiq derabbanan lequlah would be a license to play Russian Roullete. I realized Retzon Hashem could also be framed less mystically in terms of desired ethics / relationship with Him, whether an asei to foster them or a lav to avoid flaws (a more rationalistic take on spiritual damage that is probably describing the same thing). Values and virtues. And in this formulation, there is no clear line between laws that Chazal would set up to implement a general deOraisa din (eg pirsumei nisa and ner Chanukah) and laws that implement His values. The broader mitzvos get kind of mussar-y / valu-ish. Like ve'asisa hayashar vehatov. On a related topic, 20 agurot from AhS Yomi. YD 201:206 (there are 218 se'ifim in the siman). There is a question whether a miqvah where most of the water is mayim she'uvim is pasul deOraisa or derabannan, or if even a miqvah that is entirely mayim she'uvim is "only" pasul miderabbanan. 3 positions: pasul deOraisa at rov, pasul deOraisa when there is entirely she'uvim, or never pasul deOraisa. The pesul derabbnan starts at 3 log is they were poured in before the 40 se'ah were complete; rov otherwise -- unless rov is deOraisa The Toras Kohanim learns the pesul of mayim she'uvim from "akh ma'yan uvor miqeih mayim" just as a maayan is made by G-d, so must the gathered water of a miqvah. But it is possible that this is an asmachta, or that it's a derashah about using actual tamei keilim but generalizing to she'uvim is asmachta, or... (See se'if 17) Now the relevant bit. In se'if 210, the AhS opines (nir'eh LAD) that because there is an asmachta, we cannot simply say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Thus ruling out the Rambam's idea that asmachtos are just mnemonic and polemic tools; he is saying they actually change the authority of the derabbanan. And if could change whether the iqar is obedience, limiting that possibility only to dinim derabbanan that have no asmachtos. IFF RYME buys into that idea at all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 08:31:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:31:48 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ie the current issue is about one who has specifically violated tora laws related to even haezer related issues. i wonder if crimes against secular governments would fall under the same type of reasoning , which as i understand , is only due to a 'bizayon hatora' . it would seem that any type of crime might fit that bill.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 12:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:45:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: , <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ------------------------------------ "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). 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 Mon Jun 20 13:57:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:57:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=24398 r reuven feinstein [around minute 35 ] responds on this tora umesora Q and A on how the haredi teacher should deal with Hallel on YH. thiswil presumably be more of a bedieved, since lechatchila schools that celebrate YH shouldn't have to rely on teachers that don't on there faculty, and increasingly may not need to.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 15:10:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:10:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> References: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160620221046.GA32539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:45:55PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is : not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). R' Shimon Shkop discusses this gemara near the end of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher. Leshitaso, there is a difference between a rebbe from whom "yevaqeish Torah mipihu" and learning from someone else, who could even be an Acher. But to my mind it is worth knowing and contemplating what our Sages said on Chagiga folio 15b. How could Rabbi Meir receive Torah from the mouth of Acheir [the former Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya, after he became a heretic]. Doesn't Rabba bar bar Chana quote R' Yochanan [in Chagiga as saying] "What does it mean when it says 'For the kohein's lips should keep knowledge; they should see Torah from his lips, for he is the angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts" (Malachi 2:7)? If the rav is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts, seek Torah from his mouth. And if not, do not seek Torah from his mouth." And the Talmud concludes, "There is no question this [Rabbi Meir studying under Acheir] is with someone great, this [the verse] is of someone of smaller stature." It is worth understanding according to this how Rabbi Yochanan spoke without elaboration, since he speaks only of the smaller statured, not the greats. One may say that we should be exacting in that Rabbi Yochanan said, "seek Torah from his mouth" and not "learn from him". For in truth, one who learns from his peer does not learn from the mouth of the person who is teaching him, but listens and weighs on the scales of his mind, and then he understands the concept. This is not learning "from the mouth of" his teacher, but from the mind of the teacher. "Torah from the mouth" is only considered accepting the concepts as he heard them, with no criticism. And it was by this idea that Rabbi Yochanan spoke about accepting Torah from the mouth [i.e. uncritically] only if the rabbi is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts. And according to this, in Rabbi Yochanan's words is hinted a distinction between who is of smaller stature and who is great. The one of smaller stature will learn Torah from the mouth, for he is unable to decide what to draw near and want to keep away. Whereas a person of great stature who has the ability to decide [critically] does not learn Torah from [someone else's] mouth. Similarly, it's appropriate to alert anyone who contemplates the books of acharonim that they should not "learn Torah from their mouths", they shouldn't make a fundamental out of everything said in their words before they explore well those words. Something similar to a reminder of this idea can be learned from what the gemara says in Bava Metzia, chapter "One Who Hires Workers" [85b]. Rabbi Chiya said, "I made it so that the Torah would not be forgotten from Israel." It explains there that he would plant linen, spread out nets [made of tat linen, thereby] hunt deer, made parchment [of their hides], and wrote [on them] chumash texts. This hints that whatever is in our power to prepare from the beginning of the Torah, it is incumbent on us to do ourselves, according to the ability that was inherited to us to explore and understand. And not to rely on the words of the gedolim who preceded us. 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 Tue Jun 21 02:57:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Potential Role of Orthodox Judaism in a "Fractured Republic" Message-ID: <20160621095708.GA20821@aishdas.org> [Rabbi] "Meir Soloveichik on Yuval Levin's 'The Fractured Republic'" or https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/meir-soloveichik-yuval-levins-fractured-republic ... Levin is undoubtedly correct about the state of American religion, both in diagnosis and prescription, and reading his book has made me more convinced that it is at this moment that American Orthodox Judaism may have found a unique calling. As Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik has pointed out, religious Jews have always sought to embody Abraham's identification of himself in the Bible as a ger vetoshav--a stranger and a neighbor, aware of what makes one different while engaging the world and, like Abraham in Canaan, speaking candidly and eloquently about why they are different. Last summer, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who is also a devout Christian, struck by how so many traditionalists feel that they now live in a culture not welcoming to them... As I argued in a recent symposium in Mosaic, the Jewish example can lead faith communities in a joint project to safeguard an America that will allow all of us to be "strangers and neighbors" --to fight for our religious freedom and distinctiveness, while also articulating a conservative vision of the American idea--and thereby illustrating how traditionalists can, in Levin's words, "live out their faiths and their ways in the world." 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 Tue Jun 21 14:13:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:13:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: <20160621211321.GA8586@aishdas.org> RGS posted a link to on Torah Musings: Jewish Action HALACHAH AND THE FALLEN RABBI: Q & A WITH RABBI HERSHEL SCHACHTER JA Mag | June 4, 2015 in Jewish Law By Avrohom Gordimer ... Jewish Action: Can one still follow the piskei halachah of a fallen rabbi? Rabbi Schachter: No. The pasuk in Navi (Malachi 2:7), as expounded by the gemara (Moed Katan 17a), says that a Torah teacher must be sinless and righteous like a malach (angel). According to the Torah, we only follow a rabbi's ruling if he properly models Torah behavior. If he is a ba'al aveirah, if he knowingly violates Biblical or rabbinic laws, he is not qualified to teach and render halachic rulings. When members of the public become aware of his improper behavior, they may no longer rely on his judgment for any rulings, unless it can be verified that such rulings were rendered before the rabbi's sinful conduct began. Since it is often not possible to ascertain when these rulings were rendered, one should ask another rabbi for a new pesak. Although people use [Marcus] Jastrow's [Aramaic] dictionary [for Talmudic and Midrashic terminology], and I was told that Jastrow was not Orthodox, that is different because that is an issue of translation, not pesak (halachic adjudication). For a pesak, a rabbi needs to consider all issues before him, and weigh and evaluate them. It is very different than mere translation. To issue halachic rulings, one must be part of the chachmei haMesorah (Torah scholars who follow the Torah's traditions). A rabbi who sins, especially if he commits a crime, is certainly not in this category. JA: What does one do with the sefarim written by such a rabbi? RS: They should not be used. Since his sefarim include his ideas and rulings, they fit into the prohibition against studying Torah from someone who is unfit due to his improper behavior. Any time someone writes a sefer, he fleshes out and resolves apparently contradictory passages. This is called being machria--providing one's own resolutions in Torah study. The type of person we are discussing is not qualified to be machria and, therefore, his sefarim cannot be used. If it can be verified that the sefarim and the halachic rulings were issued before this person's sinful behavior began, only then can they be relied upon and quoted. JA: Can we/should we continue to cite divrei Torah in his name? RS: We are not allowed to do so. The gemara (Avodah Zarah 35b) says that if a rabbi violates halachah, one cannot say divrei Torah in his name. The statements found in the Talmud in the name of Elisha Ben Abuya were made when he was still committed to Torah observance and belief (see Tosafot, Sotah 12b). If it would appear that the books and articles of the fallen rabbi were written before he began his sinful behavior, they may be used. ... This follows something we've noticed about RHS's position in the past. He holds that pesaq involves the poseiq's full Weltenschaung. To the extent that someone should be looking to posqim from his own camp in particular. >From Kol haMevaser (a school machashav newspaper from YU), 2010, by "Staff" http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-rabbi-hershel-schachter An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter ... Who is qualified to give a pesak Halakhah (halakhic ruling)? What makes his ruling binding upon a large group of people? ... A person has to have a strong tradition in Torah logic. Common sense has its own system of logic and so does Halachah. And to know Talmudic, halachic logic, you have to be learned in all areas of Torah. A posek cannot "specialize" in one area of Halachah alone. In order to be an expert in medical Halachah, you have to know Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohoros, because everything in Halachah is interconnected and interrelated. ... Which characteristics should a person look for when choosing a personal/family posek? Is it appropriate to choose one posek for one area of Halakhah and another for a different area? Is it problematic, halakhically or otherwise, for someone to ask she'eilot to a rabbi other than the leader of his or her shul/kehillah? The Mishnah says "aseh lecha rav" - you have to pick a rav to paskn all of your she'eilos. He has to first and foremost be very knowledgeable.... Second, he has to be humble. The Gemara says that we paskn like the Beis Hillel against the Beis Shammai, because, among other reasons, the Beis Hillel were more humble than the Beis Shammai... He also has to be an honest person. Sometimes you have a rabbi who is a politician and says one thing to one person and another thing to a different person, giving everyone the answer that he wants to hear. That is obviously inappropriate. Finally, he must be a yere Shamayim (God-fearer). The Gemara talks about why the pesakim of talmidei chachamim are binding and says that it is because "sod Hashem li-yere'av" - God gives the secrets of understanding the Torah to those who fear Him. Usually, we assume that the more learned one is, the more yir'as Shamayim he has. If, however, the rabbi of my choice is very learned but seems, unfortunately, to lack yir'as Shamayim, he is not ra'ui (worthy) to receive divine assistance in figuring out what the dinim are. And one off-topic teaser: What does it mean that koah de-hetteira adif (the power of permissibility is greater) and how does one apply that rule? How does this principle accord with concepts like ha-mahamir, tavo alav berakhah (blessing should descend upon the stringent) and yere Shamayim yetse yedei sheneihem (a God-fearer tries to fulfill both)? When, if ever, is it a good idea to take upon oneself a personal humra (stricture)? (REMT already posted the same answer here years ago...) Also, there is , which RET brought to the chevrah's attention in Feb 2014 and RAM transcribed parts of. But then we were talking about that shiur's primary subject -- "Da'as Torah - What are its Halachic Parameters in Non-Halachic Issues?" 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 Wed Jun 22 00:56:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:56:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: <> If I read ir correctly this is from 2008 (not that the halachot have changed). In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. Today with the abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 09:25:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:25:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes. Now that makes sense in a neoplatonic framework, but it needs a new foundation today. This is a particular issue because in Ish HaHalacha RYBS describes these same ideas as a priori categories, and a good Kantian would attribute a priori categories, not to an objective realm, but to the structure of human thought. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 12:54:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:54:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: , <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) Kol tuv Joel rich Sent from my iPad On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: I've been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 22 14:55:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:55:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: I read it. It?s very good, and it?s what prompted me to reread Uvikashtem Misham. It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious justification. The book you cited is RYB?s exposition of the Rambam?s views, but UM is his exposition of his own views. Those are the views that require justification. DR > On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > > You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: > aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan > > This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) > Kol tuv > Joel rich > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: > >> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. >> >> Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? >> >> David Riceman >> _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Jun 22 19:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:24:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <576B485F.8020001@sero.name> On 06/22/2016 05:55 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: > It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use > neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious > justification. Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they make testable claims that can be refuted? If you mean merely that it's no longer fashionable, why should that matter? We Jews have never let fashion dictate our philosophies, and why should we? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 03:29:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:29:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20160623102930.GA24267@aishdas.org> [I also address Zev's question in this post. If yuou are only interested in that, scrol down to the line of """"""...) On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:25:01PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes : from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes... From: http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia , where I complained more of the Rambam's placing knowledge as more central to human redemption than ethic. I also noted indication that RYBS understood the Rambam differently. I simply didn't understand how, given the citations I quoted. In "Text & Texture", the RCA blog, R' Alex Sztuden suggests answers from R' JB Soloveitchik's writings to questions given on R' Soloveitchik's 1936 final exam in Jewish Philosophy. (Thereby showing that these questions were ones R' Soloveitchik considered during much of his life.) The first question, which had two parts: I.a. What is the basic idea of the "Intellectualist Theory" of the religious act? In Halakhic Mind (41-43), the Rav distinguishes between 3 different views of emotional states (and by implication, of religious states): 1. Emotions are non-cognitive. They do not express any facts or statements about the world. In a footnote, the Rav cites Hume as a typical example of this view: "Hume denied the intentional character of our emotional experiences: `A passion is an original existence...and contains not any representative quality which renders it a copy of any other existence or modification. When I am angry, I am actually possessed with the passion, and in that emotion have no more a reference to any other object, than when I am thirsty, or sick or five feet tall...'" (116, footnote 49). 2. Emotions have a cognitive component. In fact, "every intentional act is implicitly a cognitive one...by way of simple illustration, the statement `I love my country' may be broken down into three components: I. There exists a country - predication; II. This object is worthy of my love - valuation; [and] III. I love my country - consummation of the act." (43). According to the Rav, I. ("There exists a country") is a statement of fact that is in effect contained by and in the emotion. Emotions are not irrational outpourings of the heart. They make claims about the world. 3. Emotions are cognitive, but they are confused ideas. This is the Intellectualist Theory of Emotions (and religious states). "Of course, the intellectualistic school, regarding the emotional and volitional activities as modi cogitandi, had to admit some relationship between them and the objective sphere. Owing, however to the contempt that philosophers and psychologists had for the emotional act which they considered an idea confusa..." b. What are the conclusions? Criticism. The intellectualist theory correctly perceived that emotions were cognitive, but incorrectly assumed that they were inferior forms of cognition, confused ideas. For the Rav, all psychic states are intentional, and religious acts therefore contain a cognitive component, subject to elaboration, refinement and critique on its own terms. In RYBS's understanding of the Rambam, the line I am making between perfection of virtue and perfetion of knowledge simply isn't there, or is at best blurry. Which is implied by the use of the word da'as in naming "hilkhos dei'os". And yet in my blog post, I have all that counterevidence. Like the beginning of the Moreh, where he talks about the need for moral and emotional perfection being a consequence of the eitz hada'as, inferior to the prior bechitah based on emes alone, or his ranking of human perfections at the close of the Moreh, his comparing Aristo to prophets, etc... In his interview with R/Dr Alan Brill, it appears that R/Dr Lawrence Kaplan, who produced the book built from RYBS's notes on the Moreh, doesn't see RYBS's take in the Rambam aither. From or https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/rav-soloveitchik-on-the-guide-of-the-perplexed-edited-by-lawrence-kaplan Hermann Cohen's modern reading of Maimonides as ethical and Platonic was instrumental in the 20th century return to Maimonides and especially Soloveitchik's understanding of Maimonides. This lectures in this volume show how Soloveitchik both used and differed with Cohen. ... Kaplan notes that Soloveitchik's readings of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas are "highly controversial" meaning that they are less confrontations with the texts of those thinkers and more the reception and rejection as found in early 20^th century thinkers. His German Professors considered idealism as superseding the classics and Russell considered science and positivism as superseding the ancient. For these works, Maimonides was relegated to the medieval bin. Soloveitchik was going to save the great eagle. ... For Soloveitchik concern for others and responsibility for fellows as hesed is the inclusion of the other in the cosmic vision. Just as God is inclusive of the world and knows the world because it is part of Him, the Talmud scholar knows about people through his universal understanding. Kaplan points out how this is completely the opposite of Jewish thinkers such as Levinas where you actually confront the other and through the face of a real other person gains moral obligation. (I am certain that Soloveitchik pantheistic-Idealist view of ethics will elicit some comments. ) ... 2) Could you elaborate on the claim that Maimonides considers Halakhah as secondary to philosophy? How does R. Soloveitchik counter this approach? This is an old objection to Maimonides. The claim is that Maimonides follows Aristotle in maintaining that knowledge is superior to morality, both moral virtue and moral action, and, furthermore, in arguing that only intellectual knowledge possesses intrinsic value, while morality possesses only instrumental worth, serving only as a steppingstone to attaining intellectual perfection. From this it would follow that Halakhah, dealing with action, is of lesser worth than science, and that Talmud Torah, that is, the study of Halakhah, is inferior to the study of the sciences. The Rav--inaccurately by the way--quotes Graetz as stating that Maimonides in the Guide "sneered at halakhic scholarship." The Rav counters this objection by claiming that Maimonides distinguishes between two stages of ethics: pre-theoretical ethics, ethical action that precedes knowledge of the universe and God, and post-theoretical ethics, ethical action that follows upon knowledge of the universe and God. Pre-theoretical ethics is indeed inferior to theory and purely instrumental; however, post-theoretical ethics is ethics as the imitation of God's divine attributes of action of Hesed (Loving Kindness), Mishpat, (Justice), and Tzedakah (Righteousness), the ethics referred to at the very end of the Guide, and this stage of ethics constitutes the individual's highest perfection. 3) It sounds as if here Soloveitchik is just following Hermann Cohen. The Rav, as he himself admits, takes the basic distinction between pre-theoretical ethics and post- theoretical ethics from Hermann Cohen, but his understanding of the imitation of the divine attributes of action involved in post-theoretical ethics differs from Cohen. Cohen, following Kant's thought, distinguishes sharply between practical and theoretical reason, ethics and the natural order, "is" and "ought." For Cohen, God's attributes of action do not belong to the realm of causality, but to that of purpose; they are not grounded in nature, but simply serve as models for human action. What Cohen keeps apart, the Rav--and here he is, in my view and the view of others, for example, Avi Ravitzky and Dov Schwartz, more faithful to the historical Maimonides--brings together. For the Rav, the main divine attribute of action is Hesed, God's abundant lovingkindness, His "practicing beneficence toward one who has no right" to such beneficence. The prime example of Hesed, for Maimonides, is the creation of the world. This act of creation is both an ethical act, whereby God freely wills the world into existence, and an ontological act, an overflow of divine being, whereby God brings the world into being by thinking it. However, the Rav goes beyond what Maimonides states explicitly by maintaining that the deepest meaning of God's Hesed is that he not only confers existence upon the world, but continuously sustains it by including the existence of reality as whole in His order of existence. 4) Is this the basis of Soloveitchik's claim that Maimonides is a pantheist? I think he means "panentheist". But here we drift from the topic, so I am ending my too-length quote. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:24:31PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited : neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they : make testable claims that can be refuted? The law of conservation of momentum. Aristo's entire metaphysics is tied to his notion in physics that objects move when they are given impetus, and continue moving until the impetus runs out. Imetus is imparted by intellects. Intellect is what brings something min hakoach el hapo'al. Thus the Rambam's belief that the spheres -- the spinning transparent shells of quintessence in which the heavenly objects are embedded -- were intellects. Because otherwise, they would have had to stop spinning by now. And his identification of mal'akhim with Aristotle's chain of intellects, making them the metaphysical forces behind natural events and the metaphysics by which Hashem's decisions reach the world. But now we replaced the spheres with orbits, mathematical non-entities, the product of momentum and the gravity of the bodied involved. So yes, because Philosophy included Natural Philosophy, and mataphysics wend hand-in-hand with Physics to create a single picture of how the world works, Aristotilian neo-Platonism like the Rambam's philosophy did make testable claims. And those were falsified. 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 Jun 23 03:33:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: Chazon Ish Emunah & Bitochon perek 3 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Gershon via Avodah wrote: > I believe it's a Chazon Ish. > On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah < > avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > > thought of on our own. > > > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: > ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 04:45:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:45:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How would you analyze the amount of "bother" you should go to in Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? 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 Thu Jun 23 08:17:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:17:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <576BFD98.9040206@sero.name> On 06/23/2016 07:45 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in > Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to > get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the > benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether > the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 12:19:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:19:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning Message-ID: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the bracha before Krias Shema. The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved only through learning Torah. Without limud haTorah, any feelings of longing that a person may have for the Jewish way of life as practiced in the old kehillos of the towns and villages of Europe do not represent the love or fear of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Rather, they are mostly nostalgic sentiments, somewhat like that which is expressed by the song "Mein Shtetele Belz. " They have no real connection with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Such a connection can be achieved only through limud ha Torah. One cannot fear or love something that is only an idea. By learning Torah, we recognize the reality of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and, consequently, can achieve both ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem. Love and fear are really contradicting relationships. One either fears another, or loves him. Love draws one to something, and fear repels one from it. We therefore ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this tefillah that in our relationship to Him, He allow us to have both sentiments, that of our love for Him, together with our fear of violating His will. This is the meaning of v'ychad levavainu? To "fear" HaKadosh Baruch Hu does not mean that one must constantly tremble before Him. Rather, it means that one is to be afraid to violate His will. This is similar to the fear a driver has of going through a red light, which does not mean that he sits in his car and trembles. On the contrary, he can be very relaxed, while at the same time being acutely aware of the danger to his life should he go through that red light. This "fear" actually makes driving very safe. Similarly, we ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu to unify our hearts, l'yachad. to love Him, while at the same time, to make us afraid of transgressing His will. YL __________________________ BTW, I highly recommend the sefer Rav Schwab on Prayer. It gives many insights into our davening that I was most certainly not aware of. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 13:56:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:56:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning In-Reply-To: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> References: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20160623205631.GA15414@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:19:51PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments : on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the : bracha before Krias Shema. : The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved : only through learning Torah... Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The first Tablets were made by G-d, like the body of writing as explained in the Torah. The latter Tablets were made by man [Moses], as it says "Carve for yourself two stone tablets." (Exodus 34:1) Tablets are things which cause standing and existence, that it's not "letters fluttering in the air." Since they were made by Hashem, they would stand eternally. But the second ones, which were man-made, only exist subject to conditions and constraints. The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was a symbol and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the Torah [since]. Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone Tablets", so too it is advice for all who receive the Torah. Each must prepare Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word of Hashem. According to his readiness in preparing the Tablets, so will be his ability to receive. If in the beginning or even any time after that his Tablets are ruined, then his Torah will not remain. This removes much of Moses' fear, because according to the value and greatness of the person in Awe/Fear of Hashem and in middos, which are the Tablet of his heart, this will be the measure by which heaven will give him acquisition of Torah. And if he falls from his level, by that amount he will forget his Torah, just as our sages said of a number of things that cause Torah to be forgotten. About this great concept our sages told us to explain the text at the conclusion of the Torah, "and all the great Awe Inspiring acts which Moses wrought before the eyes of all of Israel." (Devarim 34:12, the closing words of the Torah) This is in a long Litvisher tradition that yir'as Shamayim is a precondition t being able to learn. Not, as Rav Schwap is quoted here, a consequence. Although a positive feedback cycle is certainly a possibility. For example, from Nefesh haChaim 4:5: According to the vast arrangement of the silo of yir'ah that the person prepared for himself, it is through that arrangement that the grain of Torah will be able to enter and be protected within him, according to how much he strengthened his silo. It is [like] a father who divides grain for his sons. He divides and gives each one a measure of grain to match what the son's silo can hold, which he [the son] prepared beforehand. For even if the father wishes and his hand is open to give him more, the son cannot receive more since his silo is not big enough to hold more. So too the father cannot now give him more. And if the son did not prepare even a small silo, then also the father can not give him anything at all for he has no guarded place where it will remain with him. So too Hashem, may His name be blessed: His "Hand" is open, as it were, to constantly bestow every person according to his reward with much wisdom and extra understanding when it will be preserved by them and will be tied onto the slate of their hearts. Everything [is given] according to the volume of one's "silo." And if a person does not prepare even a small silo, which is that he does not, heaven forbid, have within him any yir'ah whatsoever for Him, may He be blessed, so too He, may He be blessed, will not bestow any wisdom at all, since it will not be preserved by him. For his Torah would become disgusting, heaven forbid, as our Rabbis, whose memories are a blessing, said. It is about this that the verse says, "the beginning of wisdom is yir'as Hashem," (Tehillim 111). This relates directly to another post of yours of quotes from RSoP. "Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah", thread at http://j.mp/28Q172y (or http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=R#RAV%20SHIMON%20SCHWAB%20ON%20WOMEN%20LEARNING%20TORAH ) In Feb you wrote: > The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. ... > A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim > because of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is > not the object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher > or scientist, but Torah is not philosophy or science. Torah is the way > Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us. > Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man, > can it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his yiras > Shamayim. Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud Torah, she > cannot utilize it as a means to increase her many ways of connection > to Hashem. And at some point I wrote: > I realize I do not have clarity on what RSS is referring to when he says > "yir'as Shamayim". > To the Ramchal is means by default yir'as hacheit, which in turn means > fear of doing the wrong thing because it's against His Will. (In contrast > to yir'as ha'onesh, fear of the sin's punishment, which is not real > yir'as Shamayim.) According to the Ramchal, also included in yir'ah is > yir'as haromemus. But those are all feelings. How could we make a blanket > statement ike "women do not learn to fear sinning or how awe-inspiring > G-d is by learning Torah"? (Whereas men can, or in True Scotsman style: > If a man didn't gain yir'as Shamayim, it wasn't *really* learning.) > So it seems to me RSS is speaking about something more specific. Perhaps > a relationship with ol mitzvos, which is why it is only generated by > a metzuvah ve'oseh performance. But even that would be iffy, because a > person can learn an emotional stance by imagining what it would be like > if... So that by learning, if the woman could empathetically imagine > what it would be like to be a man and compelled to learn as a mitzvah > in itself, wouldn't she still learn the yir'ah behind ol mitzvos? Now, that theory too has to be scrubbed. It looks like RSS is speakiong very speicifcally about fulfilling an obligation of talmud Torah. It's not a function of obligation in general (pg 300) nor of talmd Torah without the chiyuv (pg 274). So I REALLY have no clarity. 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 Fri Jun 24 02:14:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36431880-c73a-a5c8-e53d-25218ec972ef@zahav.net.il> There is also an ideological element to the reduced numbers. Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook strongly pressured the DL schools to not hire chareidi teachers (for obvious reasons). Ben On 6/22/2016 9:56 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. > Today with the > abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a > DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:17:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in Monsey. Ben On 6/23/2016 1:45 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in Eretz > Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get > birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit > of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah > is on the cohanim alone? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:01:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birkhat cohanim Message-ID: <> Certainly not a mitzvah in the formal sense of the word. However Rav Melamed explains that the chazzan (or someone in the congregation) calls out "cohanim" to signify that we wish to accept the blessing and only then can the cohanim begin see http://ph.yhb.org.il/02-20-07/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 05:20:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:20:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. > Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in > Monsey. > Ben The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. [Email #2. -micha] >> On 06/23/2016 07:45 Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? > Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > Zev The Haflaah among others. Listen here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/858947 Rabbi Ezra Schwartz-Duchening for non kohanim Kol tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 06:46:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576D399C.3070707@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 05:17 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. But only those who are in front of them, not those behind them. So I suppose any kohen, on any day, is only blessing half of Am Yisrael. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:12:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6deabf95-1f8d-0240-e958-c2518f9d8be0@zahav.net.il> On 6/24/2016 2:20 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one > stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. Because the people behind the cohenim are able to walk a couple of feet and choose not to whereas anyone else is considered anoos and therefore they are included in the bracha. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:17:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:17:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: >> How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in >> Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to >> get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the >> benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? >Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the kohanim. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:12:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 01:17 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >>Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > > The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer > Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the > kohanim. Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:10:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:10:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160624181048.GA19921@aishdas.org> In AhS yomi today, YD 240:34, RYME discusses the issur of listening to a parent who tells you to violate the din. One cannot discuss achei dokheh lav because the pasuq excludes such commands from a parent's authority. He ends: And memela, also in an issur derabbanan it is against the Torah. For HQBH commanded not to veer from anything the chakhamim say. So, those who say lo sasur is only an asmakhta for obeying a mitzvah derabbanan, do they say kibud av does include an order to violate a lave derabbanan? Or do they have a different sevara? :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:15:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160624181511.GB19921@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:54:09PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The : Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai : that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva See also AhS se'if 39, who says the same, but in more detail. The Lekhem Mishnah lmits the Machloqes to while the father is alive, saying that even the Rambam does not require KaVA of an evil parent fter their petirah. The Kesef Limits it to mishel ha'av, the son of an evil parent is not chayav lehachzir lo mishelo. And he believes Rashi explains the gemara in a manner consistent with the Tur's position. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:18:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev for a berakhah? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:22:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:22:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? > : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say > : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. > > Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev > for a berakhah? Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for women according to the BeHaG? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 01:54:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:54:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: R' Zev Sero asked: "Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed?" The Biur Halacha at the beginning of Siman 128 quotes from the Sefer Charedim that there is a mitzva on the tzibur to be blessed by the kohanim. The Haflaah in Kesubos 24b uses this Charedim to explain why it is prohibited for a non-Kohen to go up to duchen, He says that if a Yisrael goes up to duchess he is being mevatel his mitzva of receiving the beracha. See also the Minchas Chinuch 378 who quotes this Charedim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 25 11:05:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:05:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > explanation of the Rambam. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not > the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a > safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important . R. Avraham pointed out that problem of the authority of the rabbis is a basic problem and not just a difficulty with a Rambam and Ramban. The better the source of their authority the more it looks like a de-oraisa. The more one goes away from a de-oraisa the weaker their authority. His major answer is that every time there is a dichotomy the only way out is to find a third middle path. In general this replaces a binary decision by a continuum path. His standard example is the definition of bald. Someone who has one hair is obviously bald. It is also obvious that adding one hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. The conclusion by induction is that every one is bald. The answer to the riddle that the dichotomy of bald not-bald is not correct. Adding one more hair makes someone less bald. It is a continuum and not a binary. R Avraham (RMA) brought the Nesivos that also (or more correctly first) states that there are two types of violating a derabbanan. One is to rebel against the concept of derabbanan and that is lo tasur according to the Rambam (he also hinted that in the next shiur the Ramban will agree with the Rambam). OTOH if one violates the rabbanan rule "le-teavon" then it is a strictly rabbinical rule. Hence, Nesivot concludes that if one one violates a rabbanan "be-shogeg" one does not need kaparah. In essence he has done nothing wrong. The lo-tasur is only for rebellion and he has not rebelled. Note that practically there can't be rebellion and safek. In modern terms the netivot says that all rabbanan decrees are gavra and not cheftza. Eating meat and milk (cooked together) the mixture is prohibited. Eating chicken and milk cooked together there is nothing wrong with the mixture. It is rebelling against the chachamim to eat it on purpose (lo tasur) or rabbinic if eaten le-teavon. RMA pointed out that this again comes back to the problem of why to listen to the rabbis Note that the Rogachover holds that every mitzvat aseh is only gavra and not cheftza A second explanation was from the Rogatchover: The prohibition from the Torah only demands that we accept the authority of the rabbis. If someone accepts that the rabbis can make decrees but decides that nevertheless he can't/won't listen then there is no Torah prohibition. This leaves open the question how is it possible that one can accept the authority of the rabbis but still disagree with them. It seems to bring back the original question of what good is their authority if one need not listen, To explain this RMA brought a Tzlach. The Nodah BeYehuda states that sevara yields a de-oraisa only if their is a connecting pasuk. Thus killing someone to save oneself is a deoraisa based on sevara (everyones blood is equal). However when sevara creates a new category then it is only derabbanan. The classic example is berachot - eating without a bracha is LIKE stealing. So the rabbis based on this sevara required berachot. However, it is only a derabbanan since one is not actually stealing. (answers a question of the Pnei Yehoshua). Similarly for something to be a Torah law there has to be both a commandment and a content. In order for something to be a de-oraisa it needs BOTH a source and content. So violating shabbat is one prohibition even though there are many pesukim since the content is the same. OTOH "lav she-be-chlalot" has only one pasuk but many contents and so also there is no punishment. According to Rambam anything no explicit in the Torah has no punishment when learned from derashot. So the prohibition of "Lo Tasur" gives a generalization that there is a commandment to listen to the rabbis. The rabbis applied to this to various cases but this is no longer explicit in the pasuk and so no longer a de-oraisa. This is different than "lifne iver" where giving bad advice is an example of the pasuk and so from the Torah. In summary there are 3 types of derashot 1) examples not explicit in the pasuk - clasical example is neder. The Torah says one can't violate one's neder. Hoever the individual person decides the specific application 2) Asmachta (some meforshim) - just a help to memory. Ritva argues that some asmachtot are really the intention of the pasuk. However since it is only hinted it is a rabbanan and not a deoraisa i.e. there is content but no commandment. 3) Things learned indirectly from the pasuk there is a sevara (content) but no commandment. Finally RMA argues that finding a third/middle path is the only way out and so Ramban has to agree with Rambam. The arguments are more misunderstandings and semantics. Another example is Avelut. Rambam states explicitly that ivisiting the avel or making the kallah happy rabbinic. He the quotes the pasuk of "ve-ahavta le-reacha komecha" . This eems to be self-contradictory. The answer is the same as for "Lo Tasur". There is content but no explicit commandment and so it is rabbinic even though hinted in the pasuk. Someone who "loves" (not romantic) the Kallah but doesnt make her happy fulfills the Torah obligation but not the rabbinic one. Someone who makes her happy but doent "love" her fulfils the rabbinic command but not the Torah obligation. RMA then hinted to a wider application to general philosophical questions where one has observations and generalizations. How is it possible to generate a physical law (eg Maxwell's equations) when all we have are a finite number of observations. In other words are mathematical descriptions of nature inherent in nature or man-made. De-raisa is like observations we only have what is explicit. Derabbanan are generalizations. In both cases we need to find a middle/continuum path Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 08:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev >> for a berakhah? > Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? > In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for > women according to the BeHaG? In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: <576FFEA2.1070206@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 11:51 AM, elazar teitz wrote: > In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf > person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of > noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer > Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the > blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. Good distinction. Even awareness is presumably not necessary, since we bring babies to be blessed. But is this distinction really relevant to the question of whether to make a bracha? Where do we see that a bracha depends on a chiyuv to hear rather than merely to be present? Further question: is a bracha said on attending hakhel? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:13:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:13:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: <<< According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? >>> As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the latter than the former. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:34:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and then continues on the cruise. We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many days -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:32:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:32:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57709038.8010307@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:34 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for > someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every > day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a > difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and > then continues on the cruise. > > We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips > on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of > the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many > days How much more so. If one says it (without shem umalchus) every morning of the journey, even at a hotel where one might be staying for a day or two to rest, how much more so must one say it (again without shem umalchus) every morning if one is actually travelling at that very moment. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:30:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:30:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57708FB9.2050601@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:13 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be > blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: >> According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? > As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one > does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. > Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the > recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. > How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the > kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Our case is different, because once the cohen has answered the call and gone up to the duchan he can't change his mind. He's now obligated to bless. And if he hasn't done it yet that day then he has to do it anyway. > Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha > only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel > and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely > being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is > indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the > latter than the former. But we *do* have an obligation to say a bracha, which we are yotzei by listening to the baal tokeia's or baal korei's; if he has already been yotzei himself then he does *not* say the bracha again, and one of the listeners says it for everyone. Here, however, we are not yotzei with the cohanim's bracha, since it doesn't apply to us; we are not sanctified with Aharon's kedusha, and we were not commanded to bless but (according to this opinion) to be blessed. So if we're not yotzei their bracha why don't we say our own (or have the chazan say it for us)? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 02:10:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:10:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: In my original post I was too short. Therefore I will expand a little about tefillat haderech and my question 1) Rashi holds that tefillat haderech (THD) is requesting permission from Hashem and so can only be said within the first parsah. Bahag holds that THD is asking for protection and so can be said anytime up to a parsah before the end of the trip. Rosh and SA pasken like Behag. Rambam doesn't mention THD and meforshim try and explain why 2) Ashkenazim measure parsah as a distance (about 4km) even when using a car or plane. ROY translated parsah to a time of 72 minutes. 3) Kolbo says that one says THD only once a day even if one made a stop during the day (quoted in SA). Hence, MB says that if one is touring and stops every night in a hotel one says THD every morning with a bracha. Yalkut Yosef says that if one travels 40 minutes going to work and 40 minutes back they don't combine and one says THS without a bracha 4) Radvaz talks about an extended trip and says that even if one is not stopping in a "yishuv" and if if one is travelling all night he says THD every day but a bracha only on the first day. Pri Chadash disagrees says that one says THD only on the first day even if it is an extended trip MB says that if one makes a short stop then one should say THD the next morning without a bracha 5) As an aside RSZA paskens that one does not say THD traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as there are cities all along the way. Yalkut Yosef disagrees. RSZA also says that on a plane one should say THD shortly after the plane leaves the ground My question concerned travelling on a boat either several day journey without stops across the Atlantic or else a cruise with many stops in ports. According to the Pri Chadash one certainly doesn't say THD after the first day. However, even according to the Radvaz one might argue that there is no need to say THD after the first day since one always stays on the boat day and night and it is different than a caravan. Of course one can always say THD without a bracha but the question is whether one needs to. I have no surveys but in my limited experience people do not say THD every day on a cruise even without a bracha -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 06:17:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei halachot in monetary matters Message-ID: A new web site exists collecting piskei halachot in financial matters especially from eretz chemda courts in Israel currently 336 rulings with a search engine psakim.org -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 07:39:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:39:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Buying Sliced Watermelon Message-ID: <1467038393622.33144@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. I am preparing a picnic. Can I buy sliced watermelon from the supermarket? A. The Shach (YD 96:3) cites a concern that a knife often contains a fatty residue even after it has been washed or wiped with a rag. Therefore, if a non-kosher knife was used to cut kosher food, some of the residue on the knife would transfer to the food. Rama (96:1, 4) writes that with regards to fruit, we can assume that the manufacturer or processor has dedicated utensils. Even if the knife is not dedicated to cutting fruit, however, if large quantities of fruit are being cut or sliced, we can assume that whatever non-kosher residue was on the knife was removed when cutting the first few fruit, which are batel (nullified) in the majority of other fruit. One may, therefore, purchase cut watermelon in a supermarket or in a fruit store. The market would likely have dedicated utensils and in any event it is preparing large quantities of fruit. In a non-kosher restaurant or catered event, however, the fruit would not be permitted because the knives very likely are not dedicated and food preparation switches from one product to the next. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 13:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:55:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim Message-ID: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R' Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in "Ve ha-ish Moshe Anav m'od" from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Thanks, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 19:28:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim In-Reply-To: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> References: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> Message-ID: <5771E0DF.8050101@sero.name> On 06/27/2016 04:55 PM, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R? > Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. > > In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in ?Ve > ha-ish Moshe Anav m?od? from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Here you go: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19165&pgnum=207 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 28 03:03:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:03:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is dirt clean? Message-ID: If a Jew wants to eat bread, halacha requires a certain form of hand-washing, but that has nothing to do with this thread. There are also certain situations where halacha recognizes a certain *spiritual* uncleanliness, and requires a certain hand-washing to remedy it. Most (all?) of these situations are listed in S"A O"C 4:18, and include things like getting up from bed, exiting a bathroom, removing one's shoes, and others. It is noteworthy that this se'if begins with the words "These things require washing with water", as if to suggest that washing with other things would not be effective. Indeed, the Mishne Brurah #39 comments on the word "with water": > However, for tefilah - and certainly for learning Torah - > a mere cleaning is enough for any of these cases, as > noted below in se'if 22, in the case of one who gets up > from bed. And this is certainly [acceptable] if there is > no [water available]. However, removing the Ruach Raah > requires specifically water. ... But this thread isn't about those situations either. I am mentioning it only in order to clearly establish that there is yet another category of situations, namely the ones that the MB pointed to as being in Se'if 22. The Mechaber wrote there (S"A O"C 4:22): > If one has no water, he should wipe his hands on a > pebble or dirt or anything that cleans, and say the > bracha 'Al Nekiyus Yadayim'. This [procedure] is > effective for tefilah, but not to remove the ruach > raah which is on [the hands]. The Mechaber's phrase "anything that cleans", and his wording for the bracha in such cases, not to mention his comment about ruach raah at the end -- All these things make it abundantly clear that we are talking about *physical* cleanliness, as opposed to other kinds of cleanliness. And the Mechaber writes similarly in O"C 92:4, that prior to Tefilah, > One must wash his hands with water if he has some, and > if he doesn't have any [the Mechaber explains how far > one must go to obtain water]. But if he is worried that > he will pass the time limit for Tefilah, then he should > clean his hands with a pebble or dirt or anything that > cleans. My question is simple: Why is dirt in the category of "things which clean"? It seems to me that if I would rub my hands with dirt they would (almost always) be even dirtier afterwards than before. The only answer I can think of is that halacha considers dirt to be clean. Is it possible that the *only* uncleanliness that prohibits tefila are the things listed in OC 4:21 - touching covered parts of one's body, etc. (and perhaps other specific listings elsewhere) Here's a practical situation. Suppose someone is at work, and it is close to Mincha time. So he goes to the bathroom, exits, and does the best washing you can imagine, with whatever chumros you like. Then he realizes he has a bit more time until mincha, so he decides to go back to work, but with constant attention to being very careful not to scratch his head, or touch under his shirt, or any of the things that would require him to wash again before mincha. But his job is a butcher, and he will get his hands bloody. Or he is a painter or printer, and he'll get paint or ink on his hands. Or he is a farmer or construction worker, and he'll get actual earth on his hands. And now it is time for mincha. Are his hands halachically clean or dirty? If you tell me that they are dirty, how does it help to wipe his hands in the dirt? I have more questions on this topic, but I hope this will get the ball rolling. Thank you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:32:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rishon vs Acharon and other kelalei pesak Message-ID: <20160629193257.GA12798@aishdas.org> There are some interesting se'ifim toward the end of AhS YD 242 that touch on a number of our perennial topics. Se'ifin 58-62 discuss the din of whether a rav can pasqen on something that someone else already pasqened on, and if so, is a sho'el allowed to ask the second rav the self-same question. In 59 he opines (nir'eh LAD) that the Raavad, Ramban, Rashba, Rosh and Ran (AZ 7) all say the issue is not the kavod of the first talmid chakham, but because once he prohibits, chal alei chatichah de'isura [CACD]. Therefore, if the first TC made an error in a zil qeri bei rav matter, it's like someone who avoids a piece of shuman thinking it's cheilev, and there is no CACD. However, ther 2nd TC *may* say "I think it's allowed, but I will not permit something R' XYZ already prohibited." If a talmid chakham was matir and no one acted on it, another TC can be machmir. But if it was acted upon, he can't. I do not see an explanation why. Later we learn that a TC of an obviously higher caliber, or a moreh de'asra in his own town, can indeed overrule an earlier TC's ruling. Another interesting topic is 35 -- if acharonim disagree with a rishon whose opinion was available in their day, we follow the acharonim. If the rishon was not (eg Me'iri), we say that perhaps the acharonim would have ruledd differently had they seen it. But you cznnot rule against a ga'on. Yeish omerim you never hold like acharonim against rishonim, but yesh lehisyasheiv bazeh. However, if the rishon find one position compelling (yakhol lehachira) he may pasqen as he sees (except against geonim). 36: Just as it is assur to permit the prohibited, so too it is assur to prohibit the permitted. Even if there is no hefseid, or the item is owned by a non-Jew. However, safeiq and being chosheish for the opinoin of many rishonim is sufficient motive . According to the Shakh this is because "shelo ya'asu agudos agudos." In general the AhS refers to the Shakh's qunetrus on kelalei hapesaq a lot. Even though on a couple of things he holds like the Rama over the Shakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:46:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yanik Message-ID: <20160629194624.GA12037@aishdas.org> AhS YD 244 is about vehadarta penei zaqein -- both someone chronologically old (as long as he is not a rasha or an am ha'aretz who therefore ends up non-observant by ignorance), and a talmid chakham. In se'if 3 he says that a zaqein for the sake of this mitzvah would even include a TC who is a yaniq. Not a qatan. So what's a yaniq? Someone 17 or younger. Are there any mitzvos for which 17 yrs old is a significant age? The ony reference I could dream up is R' Elazar ben Azaria, who was 17, was supposed to be getting kavod (being nasi), and turned gray (keben shiv'im shanah) overnight. Problem is, he was 18 according to the Bavli; it's the Yerushalmi who has him becoming nasi at 16, and saying this quote at 17. And of cvourse the bigger problem is that there is no reason to turn the age REbA happened to be into a cutoff line. Can anyone think of something? 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 Thu Jun 30 02:10:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:10:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] meanings Message-ID: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or should you pick one? 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 Thu Jun 30 03:51:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:51:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma > before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities > with different meanings. (By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or > should you pick one? Another example in Hallel: ze hayom `asa Hashem, nagila venismha bo (is "bo" hayom or Hashem? Most translations seem to go for "hayom", but "veyyismehu becha Yisrael" in the kedushat hayom of 18 for regalim fits with "bo" meaning Hashem) My humble opinion: for pesukim, if there are two possibilities it's not by chance, and mikra lo yotze mipeshuto -- including all its peshatim. For tefilla, I'm not so sure, but I think you should probably pick one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:13:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:10:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma : before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities : with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off : or should you pick one? As per my answer to you at this week's wonderful Audio Roundup , I believe you *should* switch off. Poets make a point of layering on multiple meanings when they wish to convey a picture using al of them. I believe the point of ambiguity in tefillah is just so that you can emphasize different shades of meaning depending on what you want to way this particular time. (I accept tips for plugging a member's web site via Paypal. Contact me off-list. No, seriously, the biggest problem with RJR's Audio Roundup over on TM is that he tempts you with too many good shiurim for just one week of listening time.) There is a basic grammatical problem, two nouns, both the object of the sentence, with nothing indicating which is the primary object, which the secondary, nor anything connecting them into a single phrase that could be one object. Thanks to previous Avodah discussions, I have a list of ways to read "umasbia lekhol chai ratzon": - Pashut peshat [check your typical siddur translation] would be as though the pasuq read "umasbia' ritzon kol chai" -- leaving every desire satisfied. (Or maybe "umasbia lekhol chai es tetzono".) RYGB disliked this peshat because it's experimentally false. Many people die with unfulfilled desires. - Rav Schwab says that everyone is dependent on "yennem's" liking him for his parnassa.... Hashem provides this needed "ratzon". (RGD) RMPoppers suggests [on Mesorah] that "ratzon" was the very quality that HQBH is bequeathing, IIRC, something akin to granting "chein". - [T]he Malbim's pshat - Ratzon Hashem. (RYGB) [W]ould would work better if the pasuq read "... umasbia' lechol chei beratzon" .(me) - RAYK points out that without ratzon, goals and purposes for a person to persue, life is empty. So he too says that Hashem bestows ratzon -- but means it in the sense of having desire, not being desired/desirable. Hashem does us a tovah by giving us retzonos to pursue. Someone else noted the parallel in pereq 104:27-28 as an argument for what I called "pashut peshat": > Kulam alecha yesaberun / Eynai kol alecha yesabeiru > Lases ochlam b'ito / V'atah nosein lahem achlam b'ito > Titein lahem yilkotun. > Tiftach yadcha / Poseach es yadech > yisbe'un tov. / U'masbiya l'kol chay ratzon. > The whole string of preceding psukim in 104 refer to G-d's ability to > sustain the world in a very real and material way, not abstractions like > bestowing "razton". But I think that David haMelekh created the obscure phrasing because the real answer is "(E) All of the above". I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel beratzon..." works. When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase vehasheiv: - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, - ve'ishei Yisrael. Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to restore the BHMQ bfirst? Or do we pun on "ishei Yisrael" pretending it means "anshei Yisrael" but in a unique conjugation? But the question is how to find meaning in a pre-existing text under a new circumstance. Not multiuple layers of original intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:44:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:44:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9CWhenever_you_find_yourself_on_the_sid?= =?utf-8?q?e_of_the_majority=2C_it_is_time_to_reform_=28or_pause_and_refle?= =?utf-8?b?Y3QpLuKAnSAg4oCVIE1hcmsgVHdhaW4=?= Message-ID: We all know the minority report by Joshua and Caleb showers its praises on the land and counsels b?nai Yisroel to go up to it. The ten other ?spies? give a very negative report against the land and can see only giants, fortified cities and difficulties they feel are insurmountable. These ten men of small stature conclude their report with the following: ?And there we saw the giants (nephilim), the sons of the giant (Anak), from among the giants; And we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes and so we were in their sight. (Bamidbar 13:33). The Midrash states that at these words, God said: ?I have no objection to your saying, ?We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes,? but it is inappropriate if you say, ?and so were were in their sight.? How do you know how you appeared to them? How do you know if you did not appear to them to be angels?? (Midrash Bamidar Rabbah, XVL, II). This is a profound psychological insight. How many times we feel insignificant and think everyone else looks at us the same. Just because you feel inferior doesn?t mean you are. That?s the meaning of ?You?re your own worst enemy." Shabbat shalom. ri From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 12:50:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <577577ED.2090001@sero.name> On 06/30/2016 02:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. > Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to > say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) > > In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel > beratzon..." works. > > When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in > a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the > period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase > vehasheiv: > - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, > - ve'ishei Yisrael. > Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept > the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to > restore the BHMQ bfirst? I don't see the problem, or the "repurposing". The phrase means exactly what it always meant. The only change the bracha needed to adapt it to the new reality was the addition of a new request, to restore the avodah, before the request to accept our korbanos and tefillos. Once the new request is fulfilled, the next one won't be a problem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 06:57:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 09:57:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Navigating Kitchen Appliance Technology Message-ID: <20160401135835.593F217FAB8@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 07:39:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> Message-ID: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. -- 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 Fri Apr 1 10:44:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:44:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401174415.GA2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:28:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I think the real difference between the two cases is how deeply one must : dig to see the wires and the switches: In the floor mat all you'd need, I : guess, is to cut through a centimeter or two of rubber to see the wires, : while the motion detector would need a microscope and an engineering degree : just to understand what you're looking at. But even with the mat, no one : can actually see the electricity move simply as a result of standing on it. I think those two are different in kind. In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Let's say there was an unlit room at the end of a long hall, so there was no way to light it without chilul Shabbos. Would it be mutar to write in such a room? Or is writing assur, regardless of the situation? If a bug is born of eggs that are large enough to be visible, but happen to be hidden within uncut meat, is the maggot kosher? In the motion detector (or the fitbit), the change is not detectible by an unaided human, regardless of the situation. People cannot see the microscopic. (And yes, I realize that claim is true by definition of the word "microscopic"). The change is outside the realm of unaided human senses in principle, not in situation. If one looks through water through a microscope and finds water bears and other micrscopic bugs in it, does that water become treif? Is all tap water or distilled water in bottles that were open too long treif because one in theory would find such things in most water? (For a moment there I thought about mayim she-lanu, but then realized this would be a much more restrictive issur than that.) : There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, : but in my experience this idea is very new. Not even ten years old perhaps. Rav Dovid Lifshitz spoke about halakhah in general ignoring the microscopic some time between Sep 1984 and Jun 1986. The permissability of killing bugs that have no piryah verivyah on Shabbos (or of eating them) is miSinai. Or at least, as old as some pre-Chazal rav pasqened the deOraisa that way, since Chazal take it for granted. The real motive for saying halakhah only applies to the sensible is to find a new explanation for an old heter to avoid saying a din deOraisa is in error, even though the old explanation (abiogensis of these insects) was shown to be empirically false. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 10:57:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> References: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160401175728.GC2751@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 02:06:19AM -0400, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote: : And here's the link to the source sheet: : http://cdn.yutorah.org/materials/Source Sheet-510279.pdf RMT's discussion is of ex rays, and really focuses on whether the developing is koseiv. (Also, mesayeia, how often is it really needed, etc...) If anything, I would read him as assuming that the invisiable change to the film is mutar. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 11:18:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:18:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401181840.GD2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:01PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : Seems similar to an automatic watch, except for there being post-Shabbos : utility to the recorded unintentional-exercise-on-Shabbos data. Also, the automatic watch, becoause it is never allowed to run down, is never actually broken to need repairs. What melakhah would be involved, even if the winding were observable? (And I think in principle it is... one can see the spring and how tight it is.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 15:54:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:54:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: I wrote: > ... But even with the mat, no one can actually see the electricity > move simply as a result of standing on it. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think those two are different in kind. > > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible hypothetically, albeit not situationally? If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I missing something here? Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." I will concede that he clearly has some wiggle room there, and he doesn't specify why he is unsure, but I never thought that the invisibility of the electrons was an issue, since their power is so evident. Could it be that the tide has turned, and more poskim are looking at the electrons? I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 2 21:33:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, but in my experience this idea is very new. .... Let's say that there is a posek who rules leniently on these devices, and he bases his ruling on this principle that tiny things can be ignored. What precedent is there? What lenient rulings existed 25 or 50 years ago, based on that same principle? Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice and didn't mean to kill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:34:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: This is many ways similar to the use of electronic water meters on shabbos. The meter has no external display that changes and all it does on Shabbos is record how much water you are using. The Charedi poskim in israel have all assumed that it is absolutely forbidden. You can see the kol korehs here: http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2012/09/using-electronic-water-meters-on-shabbos.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:41:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I realise that I was a bit terse in my original question so I would like to expand on the halachic questions. After talking to 2 expert sofrim the story is as follows. There are 2 halachic problems with black on white (traditional retzuos): 1. Since the black is just painted on, the paint peels off leaving a part (even small) of the retzua that is not black. The MB is machmir that this will pasul the retzua 2. The KSA has a chumra that the sides of the retzuos should be black as well. The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the above 2 issues. 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't peel off or crack, it stays black 2. The sides are black as well. The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the gedolim today use black on black retzuos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 07:38:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 10:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57012B00.10604@sero.name> Another advantage of black-on-black: Al pi din only the loop that holds the bayis to your arm or head has to be top-side-out. The rest of the retzuah that goes around your arm or that hangs down past the kesher can face any way. But if you have the white showing, inevitably someone will come up to you tell you to turn it around or just turn it around themselves. With black-on-black this won't happen. -- 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 Sun Apr 3 13:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 22:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> References: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> Message-ID: <57017B0A.4040206@zahav.net.il> This could be different because even if you walk on grass there is no guarantee that you're going to kill anything. Whereas in today's digital world, you walk in various cities, you're going to activate some circuits somewhere. Ben On 4/3/2016 6:33 AM, via Avodah wrote: > I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always > been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you > might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice > and didn't mean to kill. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 13:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:02:27 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> References: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Message-ID: Date: Fri 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 EDT From: Zev Sero > Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? > Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? > If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. Oros Eilim Me'adamim are explained by the Yerushalmi to mean rams hit - whilst living - so as to produce bruising, which subsequently produced the 'red' skins, on being flayed.Rashi (ad loc.) appears to concede with that explanation.Lulei d'midtofino, I would suggest the redness was due to a tannery process, much as the old Yemenite Sifrei Torah were reddish [brown].(Note: Me'adamim is most probably a brownish red, as in Poroh Adumoh.) Dovid Rubin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 10:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar Message-ID: <20160403170927.74F6617FAFA@nexus.stevens.edu> Just like most other Bar Mitzvah bochurim, my son Mordechai Zev started donning his Tefillin a while before his actual Bar Mitzvah this past Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini, as part of his preparations. Yet, unlike most others who start donning Tefillin two or three months, or more commonly, one month prior to the actual 13th birthday, my son started wearing Tefillin 31 days before his Bar Mitzvah, an opinion not explicitly found in any early halachic codex. But to understand why, some background about Double Adars is in order... To understand why, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos! Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 03:17:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy Message-ID: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> By Dr Lawrence Fishman or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: In many academic circles, previous to the excavation of Khirbet Qeiyafa and its publication, scholars denied the entire notion of a centralized Jewish polity in the late 11th-early 9th centuries BCE. Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as some of the discoveries in ancient Jerusalem have shown that this view should be rejected.... Because of the [Bible's] presentation of [the history of this period] in quasi-mythic terms, it cannot be taken literally by historians. Yet properly evaluated it can and should contribute in broad outlines to the construction of a historical picture of our period.... The early kings of Israel rose to political power beginning with a limited territorial base later supplemented by military conquest. Saul's territory was that of the tribe of Benjamin. His son, Ishbaal (this name appears on an inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa), who ruled for a very brief period..., also claimed to rule over Ephraim, Gilead, the Jezreel [Valley], and Asher. David first ruled in the territory of Judah. His capital was in Hebron in the Judean Hills for seven years until he moved it to Jerusalem. The Bible attests to his beginning as a chieftain and traces the evolution and machinations that led to his kingship.... As David gained power and expanded from his Judean base, he ruled parts of what would later be considered Israel.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 04:13:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:13:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy In-Reply-To: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> References: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57039DBE.4010907@starways.net> Aside from his name being Schiffman, and not Fishman, I have to disagree with his identifications. The Iron II remains he's talking about are not from the United Monarchy. Rather, they are from the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement. And in fact, they *match* the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement, but do not in any way match the United Monarchy, which is why he had to give the caveat that: /The elimination of these more extreme, minimalist views of the period of the United Monarchy does not give us an excuse to adopt a simplistic or fundamentalist reading of the biblical historical accounts and the archaeological evidence. Rather, it calls upon us to ask how, when taken together, the age-old historical traditions of the Jewish people can be melded with archaeological evidence from the Land of Israel and evidence from surrounding cultures in the ancient Near East. Our challenge, therefore, is not to ask whether or not biblical accounts and archaeological evidence are true or not, but rather how, when taken together, the evidence available to us can allow us to reconstruct a sense of what the society was like that produced the biblical traditions that we have received.// / This is a roundabout way of saying that the remains don't match the biblical narrative, but we can, if we try really hard, kinda see how the remains were later enlarged into the biblical fantasy. He also says: /In the monarchic period a uniformity of architectural forms throughout Judah/Israel has been discovered... Architecturally the public city gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor are strikingly similar: the walls are very thick and feature casemates where people lived or that were used for storage... The uniformity of the features of the great public buildings in these cities suggests a royal administration./ Substituting Iron II for the incorrect "monarchic period", this is understandable, since the uniform architecture was the result of local governors from the same Assyrian empire. But of course, the architecture of Solomon was on a scale far above that of the Iron II buildings. Interestingly enough, the cities where these uniform city gates were found are, each of them, in the regional capitols of areas conquered by Assyria. He leaves off Lachish, which has the same gates, and which was the Assyrian capitol of their province of Judea in the time between their conquest of all Judea other than Jerusalem and their withdrawal after they were struck down before the gates of Jerusalem. Lisa On 4/5/2016 1:17 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > By Dr Lawrence Fishman > > or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 14:57:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:57:10 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 From: Marty Bluke via Avodah ... > The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are > made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time > and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an > additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the > above 2 issues. > 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't > peel off or crack, it stays black > 2. The sides are black as well. > The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the > traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't > the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the > gedolim today use black on black retzuos This is not so simple. It might be argued that the 'optional' addition of a glossy side is not so optional. Rashi says, the outside of the retsuos need to be the 'noy' [beauty]. In the old manner of painting - and not soaking - the retsuos, this was quite simple. The painted side represented the noy. Soaking the skins does not give a pleasant finished article. Thus, i would argue, the addition of a glossy side is imperative. A point that was missed is the opinion of the Arizal, that the retsuos of shel rosh should be black on both sides. (However, from previous argument it would appear that might entail a nice finish on both sides.) The objection that this new process is a chiddush is somewhat faulty. I possess retsuos of over 200 years. It is clear that the original method of manufacture was very different 200 years ago. The entire skin was not treated. Rather, strips were cut off and then painted. This enabled the sides to be painted as well. Thus, the entire way retsuos are manufactured nowadays represents a departure from tradition. The reason, perhaps, why gedolim may be reluctant on taking on this chumrah, is that it may be misconstrued as halacha. Dovid Rubin Your soul is a part of God, part of His Infinite Essence. You are beyond limit, estimation or assessment. Ever since creation, the world has been waiting for you. Since your soul realised itself, it has been waiting for its time to perform its unique tasks of improvement. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 06:27:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:27:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakheh ess shinnav Message-ID: <57050EC8.1010702@gmail.com> I got a laugh from Larry's responses: >From http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2016/04/05/weekly-digest-news-and-essays-in-and-out-of-orthodoxy-week-of-parshas-tazria-5776/ ...Dr. Steven Bayme, who has emerged recently as the primary spokesman for PORAT...validates Biblical Criticism even when it negates parts of the Torah.... Snippet: ''Did Moses actually write that Abraham pursued his foes until 'Dan' in order to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:14), or was the place name a later editorial insert to indicate what by then had become a well-known locale? Were there two ?Yairs? who each happened to have conquered 30 villages in the Bashan 200 years apart (Deut. 3:14; Judg. 10:3-4) or was this but one incident occurring later but inserted retrospectively into the Book of Numbers as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Bashan?'' =================== larry rothenberg April 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm Steve Bayme, 3000 years from now ? ''Were there really two presidents named Bush, a father and son, who both went to war with an Iraqi dictator named Saddam Hussein? or was this but one incident occurring later but added retrospectively into American history textbooks as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Iraq?'' ==================== Naftali April 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm In the offending ''snippet'' all Dr Bayme does is raise questions. Is the mere asking of questions now considered unOrthodox? in which case, what does an Orthodox Seder look like? -------------- larry April 5, 2016 at 3:46 pm The answer depends on whether you are a chacham or a rasha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:14:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chayav Livsumei In-Reply-To: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> References: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160406191405.GB5241@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : In the words of Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter in Torah Web on "Torah : and Nevuah" I found it at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rsch_tzav.html : In his commentary to the mishnayos (end of Sanhedrin), Rambam lists what : he considers are the thirteen principles of our faith. We believe in : prophecy. It is possible for G-d to communicate with man. We also believe : that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was on a higher level than that of : any of the other prophets. What does this mean? Is Rambam grading the : prophets? If Moshe Rabbeinu gets an A+, what does Micha get? And what : grade does Chavakuk deserve? : : No, this is not a matter of grading Moshe's prophecy. What Rambam means to : say is that the only prophet who was ever given mitzvos (with a binding : force for all future generations) was Moshe Rabbeinu. His was the only : prophecy that was on the level of Torah. I didn't get this paragraph. Because: 1- As it says further down: : Moshe Rabbeinu was the only prophet who was given what we technically : refer to as "mitzvos", commandments which are binding throughout all : the future generations, because they constitute the description of G-d's : essence, which is not subject to change. None of the prophets were ever : shown "the image of God", i.e., were never given "mitzvos". They were : only given a "hora'as sha'ah", of a temporary nature only... Well, if Moshe alone was shown the tzelem E-lokim (which is necessary to receive mitzvos), isn't that grading MRAH's above Micha or Chavaquq, who did not? Now if you're going to say that's the content of the nevu'ah, not the quality of navi (pe'ula, not gavra), the pasuq itself says, "Lo qam navi od beYisrael keMosheh, asher yeda'o H' Panim el panim." (Devarim 34:10) 2- The Rambam himself says that Moshe's nevu'ah was qualitatively unique. In the 7th ikar, the Rambam describes the "peh el peh" (Bamidbar 12:8) nevu'ah of Moshe as being unique in 4 ways: a- no intermediary -- nevu'ah direct from HQBH b- he didn't need to be asleep or in a trance c- it didn't cause him to weaken and shudder (c.f. Daniel 8:8-9, 16) d- Moshe could choose when he got nevu'ah; other nevi'im received when and if Hashem chose. In the Moreh 2:35, we find: ... For I must tell you that whatever I say here of prophecy refers exclusively to the form of the prophecy of all prophets before and after Moses. But as to the prophecy of Moses I will not discuss it in this work with one single word, whether directly or indirectly, because, in my opinion, the term prophet is applied to Moses and other men homonymously. A similar distinction, I think, must be made between the miracles wrought by Moses and those wrought by other prophets, for his signs are not of the same class as the miracles of other prophets... The word "nev'uah" is only used as a homonym -- it has a different meaning when used WRT Moshe than when we call anyone else a navi / nev'uah. This goes beyond grading Moshe an A+ and some other navi an A or less. That would be saying they are at different gradations on the same scale. What Moshe did wasn't nevu'ah as all in the same sense of the word. It was a different type of perception. See also Moreh 2:45, where he lists 11 gradations of nevu'ah -- all of which in the usual sense of the word. (Moshe's being to different to even be listed as a 12th.) The Rambam was far from afraid of ranking prophecy, if not prophets. But he does make a distinction between Moshe and the other nevi'im beyond who received mitzvos and who not. As I said, I don't think that's RHS's intent either, as can bee seen in the second snippet I left in this post. I just don't know what his intent is. 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 Wed Apr 6 13:26:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:26:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:28:26AM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : http://shuihaber.com/2016/03/31/the-arba-parshiyos/ ... : Rav Sperber explains that on the 5th Shabbos, they would then go back : to where they had left off. This seems to be the literal meaning of the : mishna that says: "on the fifth Shabbos, we resume reading like usual." As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also possible. The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a : 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year : cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the : Community in Eretz Yisroel. Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from EY than among Sepharadim. The question is when did Ashkenaz itself switch. It must have been centuries before the time in discussion in any case. Machzor Vitri (R' Simchah miVitrie -- a talmid of Rashi and the Ri's grandfather) discusss leiniing Bereishis on the 2nd day of Sheini Atzeres, the terms for Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis, and even the reshus for each. But it would be ironic if Ashkenaz became the bastion of Babylonian lening, spreading it to EY. I guess it's true: there is no one so vehement as the newly converted. : Lastly, there is an old minhag to say Yotzros and Krovos during the : Shabbos morning Tefilla... : This minhag became popular amongst the Chassidim... But I think most loyally maintained bvy Yekkes, due to the aforementioned ancient Ashkenazi attitude toward piut in general. : The Rema comments that the R'i, Rashba and the Tur all hold that there : is no issue with interrupting your regular tefilla for this, but if you : do not say the Yotzros it is still fine... (Note: change fn 10 to "OC 68:1".) The Rama takes it for granted that the minyan is saying them, "vekhein nohagin bekhol hameqomos le'amram". So even though he hold "vehameiqil ve'eino omeram lo hifsid" -- as long as you're with the tzibbur and not even learning during the piyut -- I am not sure he is actually advocating for skipping it. Ad RSH put it "it is still fine". I just wanted to point out that he would NOT permit what I myself do -- use the time to learn. "Ein le'adam lifrosh atzmo meihatzibur". He repeated this in 90:10, where he advocates saying the piyutim with the tzibbur. "Velo yifrosh min hatzibur afilu la'asoq bedivrei Torah". : The Minhag of the Chasam Sofer was not to recite the piyutim during : davening, rather he would sing them during the Shabbos or YomTov : seudah. The Mesora is that the Chasam Sofer learnt this from his rebbe : the Baal Hafla'ah who learnt it form the Mezritcher Maggid who learnt : it from the Baal Shem Tov... Whatever happened to the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah"? 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 Apr 6 13:58:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406205847.GE5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger responded: : > I think those two are different in kind. : : > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use : > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) : > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. : : Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible : hypothetically, albeit not situationally? We are comparing two ways of making the door open. If making the door open is not a halachic problem, then there is no contrast. I am saying that nothing physical happens to an electric eye or UV sensor to cause the motor to go on. However, with the mat, one is moving two metal plates together (or a conductive tape against a plate). Cut away the rubber, and you would see the circuit close. There is a visible cause and a visible effect. Even if part of the causality is only explainable by appeal to the quantum scale. (BTW, atoms are mostly vacuum. It's only quantum scale repulsion of electrons that fully explains why hitting a ball with a bat changes the course of the ball; why things don't just go through eachother.) ... : If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For : it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the : electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I : missing something here? It wouldn't be the motion of the electronc, even if they were macroscopic. You might as well prohibit flushing toilets and rolling marbles down a ramp, if one inherently prohibites the giving elecrons a chance to use their potential energy (voltage). All of the theories about why electricity is assur depend on the visible effects of the cercuit, or the visible making of a circuit, not the moving of current itself. (Except of course RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan even without a Sanhedrin.) : Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which : opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei. Also on that list: sparking, unless the motor's spin rate is based on the frequency of the AC current coming in. But PRDNL wouldn't help with a deOraisa. (RYE Spektor and ROY permit it for a derabbanan, the MB only for a double-derabbanan.) Water meters were mentioned. I posted about PRDNL anhd water meters in 2012 . Click on the subject line and see the thread. : Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe : Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone : on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the : electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur : d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." ... That's OC 4:84. Who doesn't talk about the invisible, but about electric power. "Vreo'in zeh bechush", although he means you can hear it from the loudspeaker. I do not see RMF saying that power that goes into results that in principle you cannot sense would be assur. : I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does : try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can : be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has : something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both : teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". : It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely : speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be : meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should : also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. But another part of the permissibility of speaking in the presence of someone with a hearing aid is that at times even with the hearing aid, the user doesn't hear anything, thus ruling out pesiq reishei, reducing it to davar she'ein miskavein. The problem I have with your "it sounds to me" is that it begs the question: Can there be havarah that can't be sensed? (Including: Can there be havarah if something burns below yad soledes bo?) Tir'u baTov! -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 Wed Apr 6 14:50:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between > Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the > other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also > possible. It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there are two. > The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read whichever sidra is next on the roster, but we are not back on track because we still have some of the four parshiyos coming up. Only on the shabbos after Hachodesh are we "back on track", at least until Pesach comes. >> This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a >> 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year >> cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the >> Community in Eretz Yisroel. This explanation is missing a major piece of the puzzle. It's not that the Baalei Tosfos had such enormous influence on Bnei EY that they induced them to change their minhag. They never had such an influence. Rather, the crusaders completely wiped out the Yishuv of EY. By the end of the 12th century there were essentially no Jews left; the only place minhag EY survived was at the EY shul in Cairo. Slowly EY began to be repopulated, mostly by Ashkenazi olim. When the Ramban arrived there was a small community in Akko (which was under Xian rule) but not even a minyan of Jews living in Y'm. Thus the new EY community that developed, and that the Sefardim found there when they came after 1492, was composed of European olim with European minhagim, including reading the Torah on the Bavli cycle. > Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of > the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that > Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from > EY than among Sepharadim. How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. -- 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 Apr 6 15:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:10:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read : whichever sidra is next on the roster... Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? ... :> Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of :> the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that :> Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from :> EY than among Sepharadim. : How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue : for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. Then why did Ashk start out triennial? Admittedly, it changed by Rashi's day, so "start out" was quite short, but still, there are records of debate about it. Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the siyum every third Shavuos.) Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were shorter. There are better indicators, but this period in Jewish History is more RRW's thing than mine. Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and finally Egypt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 15:22:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:22:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... > :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. > > : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we > : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read > : whichever sidra is next on the roster... > > Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" > for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track > but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. >> How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue >> for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. > Then why did Ashk start out triennial? I've never heard that it did. > Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. How so? > (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the > siyum every third Shavuos.) Sorry, I don't recall that. > Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that > died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were > shorter. Is there evidence for that, or is it just speculation? BTW Targum survived in some communities for some special readings, even after it stopped being used for the whole Torah. So it's possible that when and where Akdamos were written it was still done on Shavuos even if it wasn't the whole year. > Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and > finally Egypt. Again, is this established, or speculation derived from precisely the proposition that you are trying to derive from it? BTW I just came across another survival of ancient minhag EY: The kiddush Rosh Chodesh that is well-attested in EY in the first millennium (e.g. in Mas' Sofrim and in the list of differences between EY and Bavel) survived into the 13th century in the Minhag-EY shul in Fostat, but only on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Eventually minhag EY died out in Egypt too, but the idea of having a special seder Rosh Chodesh Nissan lived on, and is still practised by Egyptian Jews today, under the name "Seder al-Tawhid" (Seder Hayyichud). -- 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 Apr 6 15:29:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:29:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between >> Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the >> other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also >> possible. >> > > It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. > However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. > There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there > are two. There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and Hahodesh. There is also a mnemonic for the dates of the hafsakot according on the date of 1 Adar, "Zivdu: Zyah Bu Dad Ubyu" but I've never found it very useful because the mnemonic is such a tongue-twister that I can never remember it and end up working out the dates from scratch and reverse engineering the mnemonic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 17:59:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:22:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. : The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is : irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. Again, I am not insisting this implication is muchrach, but look at the mishnah (Megillah 3:4): RC Adar that falls out on Shabbos, we read P Sheqalim... On the 2nd, Zakhor On the 3rd, Parah Adumah On the 4th, "HaChodesh haZeh Lakhem" On the 5th, we return to the sequence... The Ran (quoted by Tosafos YT) only discussed "basheini" saying it's the 2nd week after Sheqalim or after the break described in the ellipses at the end of the first line of my "translation". :> Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. : How so? The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning of speach..." Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying he is prefacing. In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn bera H'..." 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 Wed Apr 6 18:10:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:10:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5705B370.3080401@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 08:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning > of speach..." > > Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into > referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY > beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying > he is prefacing. > > In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning > of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn > bera H'..." Why not a preface to the day's laining? -- 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 Apr 6 19:33:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:33:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger's posts are very well thought-out. I've reached the limits of my knowledge on this topic. I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? RMB wrote: > ... RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we > all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan > even without a Sanhedrin. Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we *know* are working, but *appear* to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really can't complain. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 21:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. > The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between > 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd > and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and > Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and > Hahodesh. Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. I don't see how a siman helps with that. [Email #2. -mi] On 04/06/2016 09:10 PM, Zev Sero wrote [about Akdamus]: > Why not a preface to the day's laining? Note that Tosfos Megillah 24a d"h Uvenavi says that in their day they still did targum of the haftaros on Pesach and Shavuos, and also that of matan torah (i.e. the leining of the first day of Shavuos), but not that of any other leining or haftarah (d"h Lo Shanu on the previous page). Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. -- 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 Apr 6 23:04:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:04:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. >> The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between >> 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd >> and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and >> Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and >> Hahodesh. >> > > Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. > I don't see how a siman helps with that. I checked RSZ's source, which turns out to be Yerushalmi Megilla 3:5. The context of the siman is a mahloket in the Yerushalmi whether Parah is defined as the Shabbat before Hahodesh or the Shabbat after Purim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 03:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:18:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407101838.GB3151@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:10:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who : wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he : was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since : by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. ... in parallel to the already existing Aqdamos. So it could be a 2nd hand reflection of the cycle in use when Aqdamus was written, rather than a dispoof of connection to the cycle. (BTW, the "-ta" ending is traditionally ascribed to the idea that when a Jew stops learning Torah (tav) he must immediately begin again (alef). A homily that does fit a siyum on Devarim and starting Bereishis far better than leining inyana deyoma. Of course, who knows if that was really the author's intent. It is a "cute" understanding of the piut and worth sharing either way.) And Yetziv Pisgam does not refer to pausing to give a preface before starting The Word. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:55:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, > where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his > conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads > him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, > I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to > Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. > And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches > Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need > to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we know are > working, but appear to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are > issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really > can't complain. > Akiva Miller Pretty much what R' Asher Weiss says un putting electricity in the maakeh bpatish category defined as things that chazal didn't fit in other categories. However I think he would say gdolei haposkim will come to a consensus, not "each for himself" on major categories. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 08:40:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Kitniyot, paper goods Message-ID: <20160407154022.7A2F717FBF0@nexus.stevens.edu> Can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. On Pesach, can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover? A. Paper plates, paper towels and napkins generally contain starch. Some forms of raw starch are kitniyot, such as corn starch, while other forms of starch, such as wheat starch, are actual chametz. In the U.S, it can safely be assumed that starch used in manufacturing is kitniyot, most probably corn-based. Though one should not intentionally add kitniyot to food, with respect to paper goods this is not a concern because the starch that is part and parcel of the paper itself is nifsal mei'achila (inedible). (If paper goods contain wheat starch, the fact that it is nifsal mei'achila may not suffice to permit their use, see Magen Avrohom 442:4). Based on the above, in the US, one may use paper plates, paper towels and napkins even if not certified for Passover. For a full list of non-food items that can be used on Passover without certification please go to https://oukosher.org/passover/guidelines/non-food-items/non-food-items/. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 09:53:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160407165337.GA21819@aishdas.org> RAM entered the discussion with: > There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, > but in my experience this idea is very new. And appears to be trying to leave with: > I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great > example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, > when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? (I agree that we lack clarity here, but I am not sure why RAM thinks it's a problem with the language rather than the ideas themselves.) Well, except that this notion that halakhah doesn't concern itself with phenomenona that people cannot experience unaided (in any situation) isn't limited to a discussion of electricity or even of Shabbos. The idea that canges internal to a chip in a fitbit wouldn't be an issue for hilkhos Shabbos (until there is some macroscopic effect of those changes) is by parallel to discussions of the permissibility of drinking water that contains creatures about the same size as a trace (thinkg "wire") on a chip. 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 Thu Apr 7 12:25:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:25:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy Message-ID: <20160407192530.8B8E617FAC2@nexus.stevens.edu> Last Shabbos we read Parshas Shmini, best known for discussing and specifying the requirements for discerning which animals are considered kosher. But what is a buffalo considered? Can we partake of a nice juicy buffalo burger? Although the Shulchan Aruch himself rules that a buffalo is considered a kosher beheimah, it is quite certain that he was not referring to our American buffalo, which, actually a bison, was unknown at the time... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:14:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:14:33 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A study of Dayan Usher Weiss on LED lights in his Tshuvos will reveal his Shita that such things are likely to be considered an issur under the rubric of Makeh B'patish. I didn't merit understanding all the halachic logic but I feel he would apply it here as well. We can be halachically exploitative and also include the view that your walking on Shabbos should not be the same as Chol! I'm sure many of us have seen the strange Shabbos walk avoiding large steps. Walking with a Fitbit may possibly be construed as transgressing this possuk in Nach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 07:30:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:30:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Matzah before Passover Message-ID: <20160408143111.6480417FAAD@nexus.stevens.edu> I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan... OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Am I permitted to eat matzah which is labeled "Not Kosher for Passover"? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Matzos which are labeled "Not Kosher for Passover" are made without a full-time mashgiach present during production, and the water used in kneading the dough is not mayim she'lanu (specially drawn water). Though we would not eat these matzahs on Pesach, it is not certain that the matzahs are absolute chametz. Mishnah Berurah 471:12 writes that the Rabbinic prohibition to not eat matzah on Erev Pesach, applies even to matzah that has folds or bubbles, since such matzahs are of questionable status, and they are not absolute chametz. This would imply that "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs may not be eaten Erev Pesach, since these matzahs are also of questionable status. Nonetheless, Rav Schachter, Shlita, maintains that the definition of matzah with respect to the minhag (practiced by some) not to eat matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh is not the same as the definition of matzah relative to Erev Pesach. Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 214:1) writes that a minhag is a form of a vow. Vows are interpreted in accordance with common usage of language. Since most people consider "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs to be chametz, they may be consumed until Erev Pesach. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] Forward Unsubscribe [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 09:01:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:01:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eshbaal Message-ID: <20160408160147.GA26885@aishdas.org> >From http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/first-person-banning-baal or http://j.mp/1VdtbxE :-)BBii! -Micha Biblical Archaeology Society First Person: Banning Ba'al As published in the March/April 2016 Biblical Archaeology Review Hershel Shanks -- 04/04/2016 Was the proper name Eshbaal -- man of Ba'al -- banned in Judah after King David's time? A recent analysis suggests that it was. Ba'al, meaning lord or master, was a common divine appellative in Canaan and neighboring areas during Biblical periods, most frequently referring to the storm god. Very recently an inscription was uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa -- a site already famous for a late 11th-10th-century B.C.E. inscription -- about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. According to excavator Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, the site is probably an imposing fortress erected by King David facing the Philistines. ... The name 'Ishba'al or, more commonly, Eshbaal, is well known from the Bible. It means "man of Ba'al." (The name Beda` appears for the first time in this inscription.) ... In the Bible various Ba'al names appear of people who lived in King David's time or earlier (Jerubbaal [Judges 6:32], Meribbaal [1 Chronicles 9:40], etc.). But the Bible mentions no Ba'al names after this -- neither Ba'al nor Eshbaal. Ba'al names simply do not appear in the Bible after David's time. The archaeological situation is a bit, but not completely, different. We have more than a thousand seals and seal impressions (bullae) and hundreds of inscriptions from Israel and Judah from the post-David period (ninth-sixth centuries B.C.E.). The name Eshbaal is not to be found among these names. The situation with the name Ba'al is slightly different; it does occasionally appear in Israel -- and of course in Philistia, Ammon and Phoenicia. But not in Judah! It seems that Ba'al and Eshbaal were banned in David's kingdom. One reason may have been that, at least officially, Judah was monotheistic. Thus, names constructed with a form of a foreign deity's name -- especially of Ba'al, who was Yahweh's rival -- would not have been considered kosher. In addition, David's predecessor and rival, King Saul, fathered a son named Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33 [2]) who reigned for two years (2 Samuel 2:10) -- another good reason to bar the name in David's kingdom. [2] "Ishbosheth" in the account in 2 Samuel 2-4. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 08:52:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:52:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> References: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160411155203.GA3225@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:36:04PM IDT, R Ben Waxman posted to Areivim: : https://twitter.com/benwaxman/status/718898333075566592 : Translation of something Rav Sharki said in an article on dati : students attending university: : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? This has to be a mistranslation. After all, being unable to find an answer is FAR short of proving no answer exists. Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and tragedy. 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil 3. God exists First proposal. Therefore 4. There is no evil But observation will tell you: 5. There is evil We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. So really only 3 & 5 are plausible open to denial: either there is no G-d, or there is no evil. As I posted there: Theists consistently reject #2 "If an OOO Being exists, there would be no evil." That is given short shrift, and therefore the real argument is really swept under the rug. A world in which the OOO Being provides all the good might be worse than a world in which the OOO Being wants to provide others the opportunity to be provides of good themselves. The assumption is that a world of passive recipients is better (more good) than a world of contributors. This argument is kind of like saying that: 1- A parent has the ability to see more obvious sources of pain in advance and help a child avoid them. 2- A good parent would try to do so. Yet 3- Good parents allow their toddlers to fall on their bums when learning to walk -- despite seeing it coming. Therefore, 4- there are no good parents. The answer is -- #2 is false. There are better goods than preventing all pain. But notice I didn't answer the question of theodicy, tzadiq vera lo. Arguably the question is unanswerable to humans. (Admittedly there are O Jews who deny #5, and assert that tragedy is an illusion. My argument is more that the best universe is one that has the lesser evil, that a paradox in the human condition makes a world with no tragedy itself imperfect. The question of the reality of evil is a tangent worth exploring, but not to go even further afield than my point.) R' Sherky is NOT possibly arguing we should therefore accept Prof Haslanger's argument, though. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: While RUS's name appears around the web both as "Sharky" and "Sherky", I'm going with the evidence of . -- 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 Mon Apr 11 16:21:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:21:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag Message-ID: I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, no chrain on fish. I wonder if any other groups have such a minhag , a nd what might be the origin of such a custom. 2nd question. In re nuts on pesach , It seems all the major agencies cite that any additive free whole nuts are ok without special cert. ( pecans excepted) . However the detroit vaad recommends assuring the nuts are paked in a hametz free facility. This is NOT noted by OU, CRChic, etc. i wonder if this would be an economic hardship that the non haredim lidvar hashem would hold to. Interestingly the costco kirkland nuts remark that they maybe packed in a place w wheat, soy ,etc... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 18:59:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:59:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat > ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, > no chrain on fish Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 08:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> References: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> Message-ID: <570D11D4.8000908@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 09:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: >> I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat >> ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, >> no chrain on fish http://chabadlibrary.org/books/chasidim/otzar/4/14/39.htm Note that although this does include all the ingredients of charoses, it does not include eggs, or the greens that might be used for karpas, contrary to the sources I will cite later. > Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first > day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first > day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, > so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. > > Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems > to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be > "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. The minhag not to eat maror before the seder goes back at least to the Rashba and Rashi. Although the Bet Yosef dismisses it, the Rama cites it, and it appears to be common in many communities, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi. The BY's question is answered by many, saying that even in the case of matzah "teavon" in this context means novelty, and the pleasure that comes from that, not an actual desire for the taste of the food, so it doesn't matter whether the food tastes good or bad, or isn't even tasted at all. See under "shulchan orech", that the Ashkenazi custom is not to eat even whole eggs at the first seder, but rather to eat only beaten eggs, which is probably the origin of the common minhag to eat the egg mashed up in salt-water as a "soup". See also who says it's the common minhag of sefardim not to eat lettuce or greens, beyond the requirements, for a day before each seder, including at the first seder. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 14:28:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:28:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness Message-ID: Cannot taste the bitterness 1. "Filled me with bitter herbs - Hisbiaani bMrorim - hirvani Laana - sated of bitter" - Midrash Eichah in Psicha and on the Passuk - compares the Exodus of Mitzrayim to the Exile after the First Temple was destroyed. 2. Apparently the bitter taste of these vegetables was familiar to all. 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after kiddush. 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush. A simple person might prefer to start off with Maror ASAP. Someone may have stolen the Karpas. Those who pursue radishes for Karpas may prefer it as a secondary variety of Maror, reminding us not to consider this the REAL maror, which can only be eaten with the Matzah, in advance of next year's Korban Pesach. 5. What if one ate the Karpas leaning - bhesseiba? That would explain the child's train of thought - you eat bitter herbs - for slavery and you ate them leaning? Sorry - I have no source yet for that. When Matza was just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed Thaddeus of Rome. 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth, just call in Rabbi Vaya to check it, or alternatively? take it off the menu, finding some other food for appetizer. 7. skip the appetizer. Renal patients who cannot drink begin with Kiddush on Matzah, which some would much prefer. The Magid would be after the meal had initialized. 8. Lately I checked two heads of Romaine lettuce. When I sample some leaves, no bitterness was to be found, just a very mild sweetness. in fact the Pri Chadash in back of SA Orach Chaim - openly advocates that totally sweet lettuce - sans bitterness - is perfectly acceptable! To recap, the Mishnah lists five grain varieties for Matzah, which are exclusive. It then lists 5 varieties for Maror, but even the Amoraim debated what to buy. Rav Huna Bar abba ? sought Maror - the bitterest herb eponymous with bitterness, as the Mehadrin would seek. Rava chided him - Chas Rachmana Alan - Hashem had consideration for us and prefers Chassa (pun - means lettuce) which has some sweetness. 9. I take this metaphorically - Hashem is always keeping the balance of sweetness and bittterness in the fortunes of the Jerwish People. Fixating on bitterness can lead to bad results. 10. The Pri Chadash quotes the famous Aruch (of Rome, a century before Rashi, disciple perhaps of Rabeinu Chananeil) on Charchavina, one of the 5 species of the Mishna, defined generically - "one sort of bitter herbs". 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 sons taste it ? 12. Is Maror a specific species exact type of plant? Ateres Tzvi (margin of OC 473) and Elya Rabba combine to say there is a family called Lettuga - lettuces. That helps immensely - as the leading species candidate is "bitter lettuce" - Hebrew Chassa Matzpen - has spine of bumps on its leaf, and is a glorified dandelion! My neighbor the botanist has no idea where to find it but he offered me some fresh horseradish leaves. Horseradish relates to the cabbage family - including endives, which get some mention. 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection. My father's tears would flow as he ground his horseradish every year. The Chochmas Shlomo, Rav Shlomo Kluger, seems to have the high road of directness here. Rambamists can see that the examples of foods barely edible - which barely are considered normal foods - in Shvisas Asor - are these very vegetables - Chizrin. 15. The famous Rav Chaim Berlin, son of the Netziv, apparently got medical advice not to eat horseradish, and sought grounds to absolve his Neder. He sent a letter to his father the Netziv whether he should continue to eat Khrein. Netziv - as predictable - answers - use Sallatin - lettuce - like the common practice, and also the zayis olive size is very small. [Meromei Sadeh]. 16. In OC 473 the Lvush and Elya Rabba - praise to the publishers of the new Levush set - discuss Maror, and Ateres Tzvi explains that any lettuce is fine, as long as it is bitter. 17. Biologically chickory and lettuce are very close. If even the cabbages - the latin name braccidae are also included in Maror, then perhaps both kale in its beauty and varieties are included, even perhaps arugula. 18. Perhaps I will make the bracha on kale, then arugula, then Romaine, then horseradish for mimetic imitation of my father. 19. For me - no more sweet or tasteless Maror, I cannot make it bitter anymore. 20. See also Kovetz - in back of the old Rambams. See Aruch al Hashas who has in kilayim and in other places diagrams and exact species names for all the candidates mentioned in the mishnayos. There is an alphabetical index in the last volume. 21. Identification of Chizrin with Chazeres is no sure thing. Professor Felix has a sefer called haChaklaut..... which explains from a farmer's point of view what it means that a crop thrives in the shade. 22. This is actually a call for help! I imagine most people deal with these questions annually. Please - any opinion or information will be helpful to me. 23. David Wacholder 5:15 PM (2 minutes ago) Email: dwacholder at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Wed Apr 13 09:07:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:07:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum Message-ID: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: https://soundcloud.com/jroot-radio/yosef-wikler-apr-07?in=jroot-radio/sets/kashrus-on-the-air. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me or click here to subscribe kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 13 13:16:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum In-Reply-To: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds > this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in > 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered > Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's > largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... This is last years info. The link is to an article from 5775. The OU & Star-K are still certifying quinoa, as they did last year. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 14 18:51:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:51:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos Message-ID: Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this (even opening with the remark that this halacha is "pashut - simple"), yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. I will concede that this was a literally parenthetical (or rather, bracketed) comment, and perhaps we should not darshen too much into it. But on the other hand, he had the option of saying that a choleh may *eat* kitnyos himself, and insted he took the extra step of saying that *we* may do the cooking. And yet, the Chofetz Chaim omitted the warning which is so ubiquitous today, that the cooking should be done in separate pots, not to be eaten from by healthy Ashkenazim. So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. (Plenty of poskim talk about ta'aroves kitniyos, but that's usually an after-the-fact situation, and I don't want to get bogged down on whether or not the situations are similar. I'd rather hear about those who explicitly address the keilim issue.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 07:15:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:15:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160415141538.GA30368@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:51:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that : Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid : ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. RMF explains that one may drink whisky (51 weeks a year) aged in wine casks because we do not prohibit ta'am stam yeinam. The core of his argument is that stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6 (YD 134:5). One can taste the wine in a mixture of one part wine to 6 parts water. (IM YD 1:62) Well, qitniyos is batel berov. (Rama OC 453:1, see MB ad loc that explains the Rama must mean where the qitniyos is a mi'ut, and is not permitting every mixture.) Bringing me to the need to switch the formula for KLP Coca Cola. Corn is a late edition to qitniyos, as it is a New World plant. Corn syrup adds the issue of mei qitniyos. A 12 oz can of coke has 140 Cal (Pepsi: 150). High fructose corn syrup is 4 Cal/gm, so that 12 fluid oz can cannot contain more than 35 gm = 1-1/4 oz (weight) mei qitniyos. Less than 10%, never mind rov. So, the problem with standard American Coke is mei iffy-qitniyos that is batul. And yet it's avoided on Pesach? (According to 80% of tasters prefer Mexican Coke, which -- like KLP Coke -- only differs by the use of sugar rather than HFCS. So I hope no one from Coke is actually reading this post.) :-)BBii! -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 Fri Apr 15 07:49:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness Message-ID: 1. R' Micha pointed out the Yerushalmi discussion whether Chassa metuka sweet lettuce is kosher. That shows that the name - Chazeret Chasa - synonymous with Marror is sufficient, and bitter taste is not necessary. 2. R' Chaim Kanievsky points out that the Chazon Ish - Orach Chaim page 398 in Otzar Hachochma - strongly rejects that conclusion from the Yerushalmi! (hat tip to R' Kalman Gutman!) 3. After 6 lines pointing out how vital the taste of Maror is, CI shows the absurds of such a conclusion - if so you can leave the Maror in Chazeres, and need not taste it at all - swallow in a sieve - and since any vegetable which is bitter is sufficient to be Yotzei, we see that the bitter taste is the governing principle. 4. 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond edible. 6. Thus we should pursue bitter lettuce. The paradox is that the lettuce industry spends all its resources to prevent "bolting" - becoming bitter. The economy runs on sweet lettuce, as CI also pointed out. Pesach is in spring, so it is not so simple. 7. That would be the practical problem the Yerushalmi is attacking. You do not need the strongest bitterness, mild transitional bitterness sufficient. 8. The super-kosher bug-free industry now markets "greenhouse" kale and arugula, which are mildly bitter. I purchased both last night. Usually they are used by French chefs. This is a classic Chazon Ish. He wanted Torah based lifestyle, and Mehadrin bitterness in Maror fits right in with his theme. Build on the sound simple meaning of the Torah. -- David Wacholder Email: dwacholder at gmail.com dwacholder at optonline.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:59:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:59:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos Message-ID: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Or if you want, I am equally reviving the threads "Minhag Avos and Minhag haMakom" (see the group of threads at ) "Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva" "Paradigm Changes in Halacha" or the quite timely "obsession with kitniyot" In AhS this week, I found I was not alone in concluding from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim ch.4, cases in both TB and RY) that there is a general rule binding one (of a community) to maintain minhag avos. (At least when there is no conflicting single minhag hamaqom.) The AhS (YD 119:42, closing paranthetic) cites the minhag of Benei Baishan (Pesachim 50b) not to travel from Tzur to Tzidon on erev Shabbos. His case is a visitor who is keeping he minhagim of his host community. The Shakh and Maharal Chaviv say that if everyone else is eatting something that by his minhag is prohibited -- not as local pesaq, but as actual minhag -- he may eat it with them. The AhS leaves it with a tzarikh iyun gadol, because visiting a place should not allow their minhagim to override minhag avos. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:43:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:43:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57110C14.1000403@sero.name> On 04/15/2016 10:49 AM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: > 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your > lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond > edible. This is not true. The ChTz says no such thing. -- 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 Sun Apr 17 09:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit Message-ID: I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat. Both of them are important experts in halacha and modern technology Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need t fixler said he heard the same psak from t ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 03:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:27:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 1:02 PM Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both > Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat.... > Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it > was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need r fixler said he heard > the same psak from r ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan Why is it not mesaken mane? [Transliteration mine. -micha] -- Shui Haber From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:27:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Shui Haber wrote: > Why is it not mesaken mane? [transliteration still mine -micha] They hold that anything that cannot be seen or felt is nor metaken-maneh or any other melacha. Of course if one pushes buttons or has a model in which the results are shown immediately on the watch then it would be forbidden. The assumption is that nothing on the watch indicates that it is recording. Rosen indicated to me that he has written all this but I do not at present have his teshuva. The general approach of tzomet is that (almost) all their products are meant for special individuals etc, sick, police, doctors etc when needed. Though they don't manufacturer a smart watch the same principles hold. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:51:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:51:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us from my question.) My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can remember. But the hagada seems to say more. It does not merely tell what the proper response should be, but it also seems to direct that response to specific responder(s). I am referring to the hagada's words, "v'af atah". What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! Am I totally off track? Anyone see my question? Does anyone have a translation or perush that doesn't ignore the word "af"? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB: > > Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger > (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) > G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and > tragedy. > > 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO > 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil > 3. God exists > > First proposal. Therefore > 4. There is no evil > > But observation will tell you: > 5. There is evil > > We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. > (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually once started a thread here called ?What can?t God do??. Some examples: Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? Can God lie? I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. > (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a > prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil > to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, God, have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God really want that? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:04:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:04:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5714F781.9020002@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:51 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: > > (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem > (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar > (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh > (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved > > (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us > from my question.) I will, however, point out that translating it "knock out", or as any kind of blow, is completely ignorant. There is simply no way that it can mean that. So where does this stupid idea come from? It *could* come from some amhoretz confusing it with "hakei", hei kaf hei, meaning to hit. But I think it's more likely to come from Yiddish, a language the baal hagada never even heard of, and the phrase "hack ois", or in English "hack out". > My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply > have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that > would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can > remember. What specific wording are you suggesting instead of the ones the baal hagadah uses? > What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should > hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument > being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh > his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! > > Am I totally off track? I think so. How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him. -- 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 Mon Apr 18 08:09:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:09:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: What is the status of cooking kitniyot in a pot on Pesach (for ashkenazim). Outside of Israel this is relevant only for small children, sick etc. In Israel it is relevant this year as to whether one can cook kitniyot on the 7th day of Pesach for the immediate following shabbat. All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the pot even for use the following year ! He further claims that this is the standard custom. I have seen that RHS allows use the same day. Does anyone know of others who require actually kashering the pot even if it won't be used until Pesach next year. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:04:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: I asked why the Hagada uses the words "v'af atah" to introduce the answer to the rasha. R' Zev Sero responded: > How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked > son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that > your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say > something harsh to him. Interesting thought. But if so, then for the other OOPS! I hadn't noticed that these exact same words introduce the Hagada's answer to the chacham. And rightly so - Your child is asking a detailed question, and you too should respond with a detailed answer. My bad. Thanks! But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? (The She'eino Yodea Lish'ol never asks anything at all, so there is no congruency to invoke RZS's suggestion.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:14:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:14:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57156A61.2000800@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:04 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > > But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: > > 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? > 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? > 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? Because he simply quotes the pasuk. In the cases of the first two sons he (for some reason) davka *doesn't* quote the pasuk's response (Avadim Hayinu to the chacham and Zevach Pesach Hu to the rasha), but makes one up for the chacham, and borrows the she'eino yodea lish'ol's answer for the rasha. For the second two sons he simply quotes the pesukim verbatim. -- 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 Tue Apr 19 13:34:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:34:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to others subunits (e.g. ethnic). Any good actuary (or even a poor one) can tell you correlation doesn't prove causation, but it does provide some thoughts on some interesting questions (e.g. why the switch to ethnic minhagim from geographic ones?). 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 01:07:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:07:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: a story from years ago A friend of mine lived near RMF on the lower east side. One year RMF invited him for seder. However the friend didn't eat gebrochs but was too polite to tell RMF that he couldn't come because he was more machmir and so made up some excuse. Same thing happened the next year. The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat at my seder. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 05:17:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:17:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special Message-ID: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Pesach is a Yom Tov of diverse moods. The tragic and heroic, the mournful and hopeful, the somber and sentimental ? strangely commingled and reflected in the services and rituals. One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l?zecher aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b?Av. Interestingly, the first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b?Av. So as Pesach begins Friday evening this year (and last), so too, Tisha b?Av (actual date) begins Friday evening this year (and last). At our seder, we read about the Four Children (quite different from each other, but a portion of each of the sons in all of us). On Pesach we usher in the solemn days of Sefirah, which cast a spell upon the mirthful spirit of this Yom Tov and which recalls the ill-fated Bar Kochba rebellion with its gloomy aftermath; and on the same night, we open the door for Eliyahu HaNavi, the harbinger of glad tidings. On the day we recite Yizkor (with sad overtones), we recite Hallel (quite the opposite). On the day when we read the Haftorah of the ?Valley of the Dry Bones,? and we ask with the prophet: ?Son of man, can these bones live?? (Ezek. 37); this very same day, we read Shir Hashirim, the song of youth and of hope. When we think of all the trouble, travail, terrorism in the world and some of the trials and tribulations in our own lives, we can drink four cups of wine and temporarily forget our troubles. May your present be better than your past and not as good as your future! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:42:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:42:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special In-Reply-To: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> References: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Message-ID: <20160420154253.GA21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:17:29AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l'zecher : aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b'Av. Interestingly, the : first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b'Av. The iqar is to have two cooked foods. Egg and shankbone is a layer on top of that. Judging from the Ari's lining up the items on the ke'arah with the 10 sefiros, wre are using the egg as the cooked food in memory of the chagigah, and the bone to regall the qorban pesach. One could link that to mourning, that we are mourning the real seder, complete with qorban, as we sit down to our best-we-can-do one. And we did lose the ability to make a qorban pesach on 9 beAv. But the egg isn't really about aveilus directly. 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 Wed Apr 20 08:47:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:47:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:07:55AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly : asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the : real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 : guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said : now you can eat at my seder. I know also the IM permits Ashkenazim who daven "Sfard" to switch back to Ashkenaz (even over 150 years after the family first switched to). But I didn't think he was in general a believer in the idea that Litvisher minhagim were superior to other East European ones. Just that davening was differenct because it's a switch back to the earlier nusach. So what's going on here? Why would he encourage someone to quit the minhag of gebrochts? (For weaker grounds than usually argued against qitnios.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:57:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:57:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> References: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> I can't answer for sure but my guess would be that RMF felt that one could quit gebrochs for a sufficiently good reason and he felt that this was a good reason. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 20:17:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos References: Message-ID: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> R? AM: What about an ordinary old-fashioned film camera? Without a flash, there's nothing electrical about it. In fact, when one presses the shutter, nothing at all happens except that some chemical reactions occur in the film. Even after Shabbos, there is no visible change to the film, until after it has undergone some specific chemical treatment. Yet I've never seen a shomer shabbos person use such a camera on Shabbos, nor have I ever hear it suggested that it might only be d'rabanan. ------------------ Old MYG: That?s a great question, I think, about the film camera. I agree that it makes sense that it should be only a d?rabanan, except for Polaroid. And the d?rabanan may well be that since its entire purpose is to be in service to that Kesivah, it?s a Kli She?melachto L?issur, and therefore muktzah. But if that?s so, then the heteirim of muktzah would therefore apply, like tiltul min hatzad, and shvus d?shvus, l?tzorech gufo, and so on? After reading through it, I still don?t see any reason to prohibit it besides for Muktzah? Rabbi Bleich at this link (http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%203/Survey%20of%20Recent.pdf) quotes R? SZA that it?s ?mistaver? that taking a film photo is assur m?drabanan. Rabbi Bleich himself is not so impressed with that argument. ----------------------------- New MYG: I thought of another issur ? taking a photo with a film camera is Hachanah, because you?re only taking it for the result that you will get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d?oraysa. KT and CKVS, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:50:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:41:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the harsh attack. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:32:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:32:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> References: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160421193255.GA9816@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:17:10PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I thought of another issur -- taking a photo with a film camera is : Hachanah, because you're only taking it for the result that you will : get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d'oraysa. Return back to nidon didan (from the subject line)... A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the same reasoning would apply. But many other such devices can be used as a digital watch on Shabbos. So carrying it around -- even if you want the step tracking -- is not ONLY for the tracking. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:50:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:50:56PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to : make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not : a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. Actually, for RMF in particular, I find that hard to imagine. The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they were in error, he does advocate a more limited form -- cooking dishes from boiled matzah because the result may be confused with recipes that produce chameitz. The Keneses haGedolah (17th cent) confirms the Raavan's fears with a story of it actually happening. Someone made fish "breaded" with matzah meal, and the neighbor mistakenly learned from it that it was okay to fry fish in actual flour. Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after the Besh"t -- there are stories about the Baal Shem Tov eating keneidelach on Pesach, the Magid of Mezritch did not eat gebrochts. The SA haRav (discussed here annually) says that the change was due to a change in how we make matzah. This is the same generation in which kneading time was counted toward the mil, and therefore the whole process got more rushed. Until then, the chance of umixed flour remaining on/in the dough was unrealistic. I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thing cracker matzos; it would only apply to the Rama's only less than a tefach matzah. So here you have two people writing at close to the same time, one explaing why the minhag recently started, the other assuming the minhag is old and no longer applicable to the current umdena. But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer applicable. 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 Thu Apr 21 13:04:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:04:14 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: between gebroks and kitniyos, with our modern eye could we say one is more justified or were both products of the time. eg gebroks was invented in altererebe's time as a reaction to the nexus of thick matzos with incompetent bakers. kitniyos a reaction to legume-flour nexus . today , almost all matzos are either mechanized or learnedly baked; and only thin matzos made in ashkenazi land [unless you order softmatza.com]. and though legume flours like chickpea are extant, the communities that primarily use them never accepted this new minhag. it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them off... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 19:50:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on > Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal > Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. > I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the > pot even for use the following year ! Last week, in the thread "Ta'am kitniyos", I wrote that Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this, yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. So I will now rephrase the question that I had asked there: RET referred here to "seforim". Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this question in writing, and gives his reasoning. (My wild guess is that if such a source can be found, it is less likely to be in the context of baby food, and more likely to be in the context of an Ashkenazi who was invited to eat at a Sephardi home on Pesach.) Anyone know of such seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 13:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:50:07 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2016 5:50 AM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they > were in error, he does advocate a more limited form ... > Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after > the Besh"t... The SA haRav... > I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. > Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that > gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thin cracker matzos... > But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world > used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which > case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer > applicable. I don't see how any of these considerations suggest that Gebrochts is a Minhag that requires Hatarah. In fact I think it more than likely they reflect otherwise. The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are hardly substantial. And if there is any substance to the reason being related to the change in the way Matza is made, well then being so late, it can hardly be considered a binding Minhag. And one opinion is not adequate to propel activity to the point of being a binding Minhag, especially when it is so poorly justified. BTW it is astonishing that Matza of 10mm thickness be considered edible when baked to the point of being hard. You would need a hammer and cold chisel to break it. It makes no sense. Such Matza would only be edible if it was baked soft. Re the ShTeshuvah, he limits the problem to soft Matza, which is GRATED on a RibAysen (and explains that the problem no longer exists due to changes to the Matza used for making meal being baked hard and describe CRUSHING it) so it must have been soft. Soft Matza that is whole can be easily evaluated to determine if it is fully baked. Once it is grated however, that becomes impossible. The problem is compounded when you remember that probably the most important quality sought by the balabusta is that it be as white as possible so the risk of being under baked is all the greater. There was not ever a concern that flour remained in the Matza and that might become Chamets. But even if it did it can not become Chamets since it has been heated. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 09:11:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160422161136.GA4937@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:04:14PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them : off... An earlier question... Given our lack of minhag hamaqom, do we want to cast minhag avos off? What ties us to community if we're not connecting "laterally" to our contemporaries if not our connection to the past? Pesach is so experiential and so nostalgia driven, perhaps we should harbor / develop enough attachment to minhag avos (mimeticism) for that alone to motivate keeping qitniyos. :-)|,|ii! (And a special :-)|,ii to any Granikim out there!) -Micha PS: Yes, I do appreciate the irony that in a post about preserving minhag avos, I do a "shout out" to those who use 2 matzos at their seder. Even though most of them are doing so in a choice of textualism over mimeticism. -- 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 Fri Apr 22 09:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 06:50:07AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are : hardly substantial. The stories about the Besht are that he DID eat gebrochts. This isin contrast to the SA haRav who was firmly against. And the SA haRav (shu"T #6 in the bac of vol 6) IS substantial. See last year's BTW, while I fint this hard to accept as RMF's pesaq, R Eli Turkel told us last year that RSZA does hold as per the story about RMF: > In Halichos Shlomo (p90) it states explicitly that one can change his > custom and eat gebrochs after hatart nedarim. However, this should be done > only if there is a good reason (tzorach chashuv) for the change. Thus, for > a chatan he would allow the hatarat nedarim if keeping bebrochs would cause > family difficulties. And R Yisrael Herczeg wrote: > ... I just looked over the notes of the droshoh Rav Yitzchok > Mordechai HaKohen Rubin gave last Shabbos. He said that Rav Elyashiv > allowed for hataras neder on gebrochts. He also mentioned that Rav Chaim > Kanyevski said that the Steipler was matir neder on gebrochts for someone > who had difficulty eating matzah unless it was softened with liquid. He > added that Rav Chaim Greineman said that the Chazon Ish told him that the > Steipler's heter was invalid. And yet in his own life: > I asked Rav Elyashiv z"l if I could be matir neder on gebrokts and he told > me I could not. >From R/Prof Y Levine: > A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud > of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in > the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating > gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar > Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: > The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one > who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to > eating Gebrokts. > It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may > rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. > Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when > Matzohs were thick Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST that the minhag refers to a kind of matzah most of you do not eat. I have a few lb from the Syrian community in Flatbush, in addition to the usual. So if I had the minhag of nisht gebrochts, RYSE might still have told me to limit my hataras nedarim and continue not eating Syrian-style matzos with liquids. IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for reasons similar to the RYSE report. :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 14:11:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding hachanah, R' Micha Berger wrote: > A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the > same reasoning would apply. True, but hachana is a problem only if specific actions are taken to do that preparation. For example, washing one's hands over a sink full of dirty dishes is okay, even if one likes the idea that the dishes will get wet, provided that he'd be washing his hands there anyway, even if the sink was empty. So too for the Fitbit, which is already attached to whatever, and one is not doing any specific action for the Fitbit. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 24 04:00:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:00:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says > he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the > minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST ... > IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my > opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. > And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for > reasons similar to the RYSE report. May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. The closest true argument was documented by the ShTeshuvah who clearly related the problem to the type of Matza baked to be used for Gebrochts - it was at risk of not being properly baked [presumably because they were trying to keep it as white a possible] and being Chamets in the first place - it actually had nothing to do with the Matza Meal becoming wet. And that problem was solved by modifying the Matza baked for meal to be baked hard. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 15:27:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim Message-ID: In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: shabasos limnucha moadim l'simcha chagim uzmanim l'sason I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are, especially as opposed to the other three. But what precisely distinguishes the other three from each other? My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they the same in regards to Sason? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 12:58:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:58:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> An Areivim exchange... On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08pm IDT, R `Eli Turkel wrote: > what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:31pm +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes : from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. ... Doesn't this just beg the question? I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 2nd day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 18:22:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:22:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Areivim, Lisa Liel wrote: >> On Areivim R `Eli Turkel wrote: >>> what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts >> According to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. > I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah > of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw > from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? Who says he *did* associate lions with melucha? The pesukim don't make such an association. Unkelus does make that connection, translating "gur aryeh Yehudah" as a prophecy that royalty will come to Yehudah, but even there Rashi explains that this means that a young David will become a mighty king, just as a lion cub becomes a mighty beast. So the lions there are not really a symbol of royalty but of might; and Unkelus's treatment of the rest of the pasuk seems to confirm that. But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. -- 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 Apr 27 00:50:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:50:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> The best source is RYZA halichot shlomo volume on moadim - Pesach page 350 (shin-mem) He pasjens that (like this year) one can cook kitniyot on friday for shabbat assuming there are people in the neighborhood who eat kitniyot (ie sefardim) and on shabbat one can eat foods that has in them chametz derabban. One should be machmir only on chametz deoraisa. The notes below go into detailed reasons. I didnt see anything about the dishes. but as mentioned he just casually says one can cook the kitniyot. Rav Rimon in his hagadah (ie the last few years) also allows cooking kitniyot for the last shabbat after pesach Though it isnt a sefer the email sent out of ROY's piskei halachot also allow cooking kitniyot on friday for shabbat for ashkenazim again using the reasoning that sefardim can eat the kitniyot on Pesach itself (he quotes the shut of RSZA minchat shlomo tenina end of siman 17). He paskens that it is preferable to use special pots -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 00:56:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:56:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RMF and gebrocha Message-ID: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebrochts According to Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik of Vitebsk, the custom originated with Dov Ber of Mezeritch .[2] (This appears, for example, in Shulchan Aruch HaRav , c. 1800.) In fact, the members of some nineteenth century Lithuanian Jewish communities deliberately ate gebrochts to demonstrate the permissibility of this practice.[*citation needed *] Both the Vilna Gaon [3] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ruled that there is no reason to avoid eating gebrochts. (no source given) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 05:03:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:03:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Changes in Shmoneh Esreh Message-ID: Yesterday, as I was davening mincha, I found myself working hard to keep my eyes in the siddur, lest I make one of the mistakes that I'd have to repeat Shmoneh Esreh for. It occurred to me that in the course of the year, there are many minor changes which are *not* m'akev the tefila, such as Anenu, Al Hanisim, and the constant choice between Sim Shalom and Shalom Rav. But it seems to me that only four of those are so critical that - depending on circumstances - they can be m'akev one's Shmoneh Esreh: Morid Hageshem or omitting it HaMelech Hakadosh vs. HaE-l Hakadosh Tal Umatar Yaaleh V'yavo The chidush that came to me suddenly is that of these four changes, *three* of them apply on Chol Hamoed Pesach. There are three parts of the tefilah that we must get right, because messing up *any* of those three requires us to repeat the Shmoneh Esreh from scratch. This seems to be unique. Is there another part of the year where even two difference changes are me'akev? In Eretz Yisrael, Tal Umatar begins only two weeks after Geshem, but in Chu"l, I don't think there's ever a situation where even two of those apply at the same time. Even on Aseres Y'mei Teshuva, which has six changes (Zachrenu, Mi Kamocha, HaMelech Hakadosh, HaMelech Hamishpat, U'chsov, B'sefer), only one of them is critical. I'm not sure if there is any special significance to all this. I just wanted to point it out in case it might help others pay more attention and not forget the changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 08:10:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:10:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73622773-BB32-4FA9-B6ED-CFF33EF6C253@optimum.net> RMGR: > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. > I would have thought just the reverse. If there?s a halachic foundation all it requires is a psak. When the behavior is extra-halachic we may require hataras nedarim. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 09:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:12:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:06:02AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) ... :> We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. :> (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO : This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually : once started a thread here called "What can't God do?". Some examples: : Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? : Can God lie? The Moreh discusses both points. 1- Omnipotence is really a statement that nothing lies beyond his Potency than insisting He posesses an infinite amount of power. 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless nonsense clauses. The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Why? It would be pure Tov, not Chesed. : Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. Thus the idea I labeled #1 above from the Moreh, and his via negativa. R' Moshe Taqu infamously takes the opposite approach -- it would be presumptuous to define G-d even to the extent of insisting that we must limit ourselves to defining what He Isn't. RMT therefore insists we must accept the descriptions in Tanakh uncritically. (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, one way or the other.) :> (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a :> prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil :> to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. : Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general : problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, : God, : have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods : may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. : So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God : really want that? Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congential birth defects and other such natural evils. This could be one element in a broader answer. And that was sort of my point... By ignoring the whole subject of theodicy, Dr Haslanger misses the main point she would need to refute. As an aside, a central part of RYBS's hashkafah is that much of free will is choosing between goods that are in dialecitcal tension. More often than a pure good vs evil choice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? the tragic which :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427170529.GB29457@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:41:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah wrote: : Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you : should also say something harsh to him : : This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the : harsh attack. Maybe it's true by definition. A rasha is someone who is beyond listening. And the child ready to hear the soft response isn't a rasha. I saw someone suggest haqheih here is meant in the sense of morbid craving, not blunting. As in Y-mi Shevi'is 4:6 (vilna 12a) "Amar Rabbi Avun: derekh haqeihus okhelin oso". And shinav -- in the sense of veshinantam. In which case, you have the pretty idea: Make him crave his studies. But it doesn't work. "Haqhei es shinav" is an idiom that is used elsewhere by Chazal, such as Sotah 49a (2x). (There is also "anavim qeihos" as unripe or sour grapes in Avos 4:20, but that may just be a third usage.) But since haqhei es shinav is an idiom, maybe the idiomatic meaning is far milder than a literal translation. Like "shut him up". (Edginess of my translation intentional, to relay the aggressiveness implied by the idiom.) :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:21:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:21:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> On 04/27/2016 12:12 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore > part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. > But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, > any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless > nonsense clauses. > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. CS Lewis agreed with the Rambam. See my .sig Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach bigvul". The purpose of creation, Chabad says, and of all our avodah, is to make Him a "dira batachtonim", which is a logical impossibility. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 13:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed : >create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", : and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach : bigvul".... Nowadays there are multiple logics. Some are just mathematical playthings, but many are used in the real world. (The two I somewhat know are fuzzy logic, used in many problems like thermostats, to represent predicates like "hot" which has varying degrees of truth; and quantum logic, used in subatomic physics.) Speaking of non-classical logics , I heard RYBS discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. Because RYBS's topic was how bein hashemashos is actually both days at once. This explains why an esrog used one day is assur BHS because it's the same day and then assur the next day because it was also BHS -- the start of that day. But the notion of noone special logic makes the Rambam's idea that logic is part of Truth and thus of His Essence much harder to support. You would have to go meta, and speak of the usability of various logics in general. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 14:46:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:46:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name>,<20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> > > Speaking of non-classical logics > , I heard RYBS > discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which > he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows > for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that > halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. ---------------------- I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law of the excluded middle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle Moadim lsimcha 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 Apr 27 18:35:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:35:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: I had asked: > Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many > publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that > kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. > But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this > question in writing, and gives his reasoning. Yes! "Medical Halachah for Everyone" [1980, Feldheim] by Abraham S. Abraham MD, page 82, gives a specific procedure for an Ashkenazi who is suffering from diarrhea and needs to eat rice on Pesach, and then writes: > Separate utensils must be used for cooking and eating such foods on Pesach. His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf Hachayim). Then, he discusses at length whether or not a (Ashkenazi) guest needs to worry if his (Sefardi) host used those keilim in the past 24 hours, and several related situations. HOWEVER -- I am shocked by how different this halacha appears in Dr Abraham's book, and in the sefer he cites. I concede that the Kaf Hachayim does cite several problems that the Ashkenazi should be concerned with, and I concede that Dr Abraham's procedure safeguards against them all. But it also conjures up additional problems that the Kaf Hachayim was NOT worried about. Some might say that I am being too hard on a "kitzur sefer" that tries to service the layman by packing a lot of information into a few pages. I say: On the contrary! His book could have been two words shorter if he had left out the words "and eating". If the kli rishon is okay after 24 hours, I would imagine that the kli sheni is okay even sooner. Oh - here's another thing: The Kaf Hachayim was talking about a *healthy* Ashkenazi who eats from Sefardi keilim. I think that if Dr Abraham is going to apply those halachos to an Ashkenazi *choleh*, maybe he should cite a posek on it. Caveat lector! Check the sources whenever you can! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:20:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > > > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. > > He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any > of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf > Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the beginning of the first volume? Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:29:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Old Audio Tapes Message-ID: <57581d198d4c45e5863bdf9e300d7dac@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Our shul is getting rid of a large number of old shiurim on audio cassettes and CD's. Does anyone know of any digitization projects that might be interested before they are disposed of? Kol Tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 09:26:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:26:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] I shall sing to Hashem for He is exalted above the arrogant Message-ID: <1461860967014.47103@stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/gmsnkks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 30 12:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:29:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Matzik l'rabim Message-ID: <5725078F.7070109@zahav.net.il> Rav Asher Weiss discusses a case in which a small number of graves are found in a place that is not designated to be a beit qevarot. This piece of land is slated for a large construction project, which would in all likelihood mean damaging the graves. He discusses various reasons for moving (or not moving) the graves. One of the ideas that he brings up is "matziq et harabim" (damage to the public). He concludes that this reason wouldn't apply here; the claim "matziq et harabim" can be used to permit moving graves only if the graves cause teumah to kohenim. Why would forcing kohenim to take a different path (possibly a very small detour) be sufficient reason to move graves but a major building project not? PS: For a variety of other reasons, RAW permitted moving the graves. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:24:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 19:24:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: in response to David Riceman's suggestion - extra-halachic behaviour is likely to require Hatarah whilst those that have a Halachic foundation require a Pesak consider this: if there is no Halachic foundation for a Minhag then it will never require Hatarah, it is an error. The custom to sniff snuff in Shule on Shabbos can never gain status of a Minhag that requires Hatarah if there is some Halachic foundation then notwithstanding it not being recognised as binding Halacha, if it is adopted as a custom it may well require Hatarah if one wishes to abandon the custom Therefore since we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation of there being a risk that wet Matzos may become Chamets, the Minhag of Gebrochts is no different to the Paroches being blue or maroon and suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 08:34:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 11:34:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: I have a question about an Old French word that appears in a Rashi. I hope that someone on the list is fairly fluent in French, or has access to such a person. But first, an introduction... It is not unusual for an English-speaker to refer to Rosh Hashana as the "New Year", or to Yom Kippur as the "Day of Atonement". These are legitimate translations, and it is clear to me that they are used in certain circles. In contrast, the name of Chanuka is generally not translated; it is transliterated or adapted into English as Chanukkah or Hanuka or something similar, but translations like "Festival of Dedication" (and "Festival of Lights", which isn't really a translation at all) are much rarer. But this post is not about those holidays; it is about the one we just completed. I have long thought that the English language was unique, in that we have a translation for the name Pesach, namely "Passover". I concede that although we might perceive of "Passover" as a basic word of simple English, it was actually coined by William Tyndale in the early 1500s, for the specific purpose of translating the root "pesach" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible#Legacy). Be that as it may, it *IS* an easily-understood term for any English-speaker, most especially in the contexts of Shmos 12:11-13: "They will eat the Passover offering... and I will pass over them..." and Shmos 12:27: ?It is the Passover offering, to G-d Who passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt..." I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the focus on the experiential story. But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:16:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:16:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 11:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 20:13:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> On 4/27/2016 7:09 PM, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: > I don't know on what basis the digests say that you need separate kelim > for kitniyos. The taam of kitniyos that is absorbed into the pot in > which it was cooked is automatically batel. I think it's just recommended > for a heker, so you'll remember not to eat kitniyos yourself, and not > really necessary at all. > And if you know before Pesach that you're going to cook kitniyos for > next Shabbos, you'll leave it out of the chometz cupboard. I read various guides about this Shabbat. To sum up the issues involved: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. 2) Does the eiruv tavshilin cover cooking kitniyot? Since you would be cooking the rice/beans when they are assur to you, maybe teh ET doesn't cover it. However according to Rav Shlomo Zalman, if one lives in a place in which there are Sefardim, the theoretical possibility that a Sefardi person would stop over is enough. 3) Checking the kitniyot: One has to check the kitniyot for chameitz. I personally bought Kitov rice that had been checked twice and only a third check was required. Why they didn't check it a third time, I don't know. 4) Anything cold (eg chummus) isn't a problem at all. 5) Addendum: This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issues. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:45:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 12:45:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Simon Montagu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < >> He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any >> of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf >> Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the > beginning of the first volume? > > Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two > possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera > Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is > the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! Hazon Ovadiah on the Haggada (note 8 on page 55 of the 5739 edition) brings some of the same sources, without so many rashei teivot: Shu"t Zera Emet helek 3 (helek Orah Hayyim siman 48) http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=742&st=&pgnum=122 Hukkat Hapesah siman 453 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7855&st=&pgnum=172 But as far as I can tell none of the sources are directly addressing the question of an Ashkenazi cooking kitniot in his own house, as opposed to being invited to a Sephardi. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 14:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 17:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: On Areivim, in the thread "kitniyot", R' Ben Waxman wrote: > It doesn't make sense to me that the only holiday in which > the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor has become so > divisive that people would consider not eating with family. My guess is that "the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor" is a reference to how the Korban Pesach must be eaten. I certainly can't argue with that, but there is much more to this story. The Pesach 5776 issue of YU's "Torah To-Go" has an article titled " Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach" (the url is too long; just google the title and you'll find it) by Rabbi Yona Reiss, who writes: > The late Belzer Rebbe (Rav Aharon Rokeach zt"l) brings a > different source for the custom of not eating in others' > homes on Pesach, noting that only with respect to Shavuot > and Sukkot does the Torah mention the notion of rejoicing > together with others (Devorim 16:11, 16:14), but not with > respect to Pesach. Therefore the scriptural implication > is that on Pesach there may be a basis for parties to > refrain from joining each other for their meals. BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 19:38:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:38:35 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> `On the matter of Gebrochts, R?MG Rabi wrote in Issue 43 > Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to > make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not > a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. > > RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on > the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. > and in Issue 44 > May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a > custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - > as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. Mori V?Rabbi R? Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to eat soft matzot. The Ramah quotes the minhag that the matzos should be thinner than an etzba ...the soft matzos are thinner just like what color you have on the poroches is not a minhag, it is a matter of taste. Not every little sneeze is considered a minhag. However, if a person descends from chassidishe families and they have a minhag not to eat gebrokts *unless someone should pasken for him that this is a minhag shtus or a minhag b'taus, it would not even help to make a Hatoras nidorim*. Hatoras nidorim for a minhag only works if it is a *personal* minhag. The baal ha'neder has to request from the beis din the ha'tora. *If an entire community has a minhag, you have to get the entire kehilla to be matir the neder. One member of the community cannot be matir the neder on his own*. Just like if a person decides that he does not want to wait six hours between milchig and fleishig, he cannot be matir the neder, *he* is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years ago when the matzohs were much thicker. The concept of dovor sh'bminyan, etc. that even if one lives in a generation when the reason for the takanah no longer applies, the takanah is still binding, only applied to takonos d'rabbonon and *does not apply to minhogim*. The Ramah in his teshuvos writes like this and rashi in the first perek in Beitza writes the same. If I am not mistaken, I think the very last teshuva in Achiezer volume 3 by r. chaim ozer writes the same.? I conclude that we should be much more careful before attempting to extrapolate from Poskim of the enormous stature of Mori V?Rabbi. Dr. Isaac Balbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 22:01:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:01:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Best, Meir G. Rabi On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah > wrote: > : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the > illustration > : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in > force > : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] > > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza > on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for > me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable > hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:28:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:28:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically. And after the kitniyos were cooked in it the issur is automatically batel; the taam of kitniyos in the walls is surely less than 50%! -- 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 Sun May 1 21:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5726D8FF.6020709@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 05:48 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this > way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is > especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. I believe it got started because on Pesach there are so many different standards that it's often difficult to be sure that this is the case. Even if the host has more chumros than the guest, they may be different ones, and there will be something the guest doesn't eat and the host does. Detailed inquiry about these matters may be embarrassing. If the guest is certain that the host's standards are as strict or stricter than his own in all matters, then AFAIK the minhag doesn't apply. -- 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 Mon May 2 03:42:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160502104240.GB10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:01:51PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza : > on Pesach.... :> no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Well it doesn't need to be. Topics drift. However, I would ask whether RHS would compare Ashkenazi matzah styles to fashion rather than minhag if he could not prove there was a time when Ashkenazim too used soft matzos. You were using his idea as an example of minhag requiring a halachic foundation, that the risk gebrochts avoids be a real one. I don't see that. (It would also do wonders to qitniyos if that question were admissible.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:48:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:38:35PM +1000, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Mori V'Rabbi R' Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) : "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to : eat soft matzot.... : he is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to : say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years : ago when the matzohs were much thicker...." Why quote RTG when the Pischei Teshuvah said it first? OTOH, in the same generation, the SA haRav says that gebrochts only makes sense *after* we started counting kneading time toward the 18 min. And as a pragmatic matter, they both were very likely part of the same change in matzah-making norms. (If you have less time to bake matzos now that kneading ate up some of the time, you need thinner matzos.) I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old could the minhag have been? And if so, could RTG's theory be correct even in our day? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:51:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:51:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 05:12:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:12:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I saw somewhere that ein veatlim issur lechatchila doesnt apply to minhagim. Question: can one cook gebrochs on the 7th day of Pesach for the 8th day (for those who dont eat gebrochs 7 days). This was particularly relevant this year when the 8th day was shabbat. --------------------------------- On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 04:52:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57273F64.2010405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:51 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. > > : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're > : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste > : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... > > To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing > something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior > reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. This should be obvious, because if it were not so then it would always be forbidden to cook kitniyos, or anything else that is batel berov, even in keilim designated for this. -- 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 Mon May 2 04:57:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572740B0.9050306@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:48 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's > theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not > causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because > the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- > their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is > no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old > could the minhag have been? It wasn't even a generational change. The Alter Rebbe says it was only "these last twenty years or more", i.e. within his own memory. -- 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 Mon May 2 07:02:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 10:02:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:12 AM 5/2/2016, R. Akiva Miller wrote: >BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a >question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have >legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 07:28:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 08:28:08 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Old French In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at May 2, 2016 03:12:46 am Message-ID: <14621956880.190dB.12358@m5.shachter> > I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to > have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According > to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in > French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be > transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than > Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when > they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on > an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the > focus on the experiential story. > But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After > explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes > (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in > ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for > Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." The French word for "step" is "pas". In Rashi's time the 's' was pronounced. That gives you the first two consonants of the p-s-x root. The third consonant is an aspirate which, although it never drops out in inflected forms like the h does, might still be considered dispensible by an aspirational (sorry, I couldn't resist) etymologist willing to cut corners. It is a bogus albeit tempting etymology, like the ones you see in Hirsch. > A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been > inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but > that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the > question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How > do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? > And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? I can't tell you how the French of Rashi's time referred to Pesax. There are no French translations of the Hebrew Scriptures dating to then. The French Jews probably said "Pesach". That's what Yiddish speakers say today and I have no reason to think that their ancestors did any differently. French Jews nowadays -- who speak, by and large, French, although there are some who speak Arabic among themselves -- also say "Pesach", usually. Sometimes they say "Paque" (circumflex accent on the 'a' deliberately omitted because the Avodah digest software chokes on it, which is unfortunate, because the circumflex, which always indicates a missing 's', would be highly informative if you could see it), which is the correct French word, but it is rare for them to do so. I don't like saying "Paque" because it is also the French word for "Easter" and thus evokes a disagreeable sense of linguistic imperialism, even though the imperialism is almost certainly operating in the other direction here, I would think -- taking a Hirschian risk here, but there are worse people to emulate -- that the French word for "Easter" obviously comes from p-s-x. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:26:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:26:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tenets of faith Message-ID: > (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R > Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes > that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT > actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, > one way or the other.) Raavad : Born : 1125, Narbonne, France Died : 1198, Vauvert, France R, Moshe ben Chasdai Taku: 1250-1290 CE So Raavad couldn't have referred to R Taku -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 08:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57276FE3.4040104@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 08:12 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. Why does it need to be hefsed merubeh. Mechiras chometz is 100% valid, and everyone is entitled to rely on it no matter how easy it would be not to. If people want to be machmir for themselves that's very nice but they have no right to expect other people to follow their crazy chumros, any more than they follow those of other people. > OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. > Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the > supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? It seems to me that this attitude rests on a fujndamental amhoratzus: the idea that chametz she'avar alav hapesach is an inherent issur, an issur cheftza, so that if you hold for some reason that mechiras chometz is somehow flawed then you must hold that to the same extent the food sold is tainted. But chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a kenas on the owner for deliberately or negligently transgressing Bal Yera'eh Uval Yimatzei. Therefore even if you don't wish to rely on mechiras chametz, and destroy all your own chametz rather than sell it, the shopkeeper is not obligated to share your crazy chumra, and when he sold his chametz you must admit that he did so beheter gamur. If so, he doesn't deserve a kenas, so his chametz remains permitted even to you. -- 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 Mon May 2 10:03:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:03:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X isn't good enough". Ben On 5/2/2016 2:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store > can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are > communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these > contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel > its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:35:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim Message-ID: R Isaac, Please provide the references for the Shut Ramah and the Rashi in the first Perek Beitza. As for the Achiezer, that quite clearly supports the assertion that ONLY if the practice of not being MeNaker the hind-quarters is associated with a Halacha can it have any sort of binding power. It is truly confounding to see some people asserting the views of various Rabbanim without ever finding it necessary to actually do more than tell a story or tell us that the Posek said "it" to a friend or "it" was heard directly. For example we just had someone quote RHS saying a Halacha from the Rama, which the Rama does NOT say - this seriously undermines the credibility. Neither should we accept the report that RHS Paskened that those who do not eat Gebrochts require a Pesak that it is a Shtus because Hatarah does not work since a community has followed this practice, and the entire kehilla requires Hatarah. That's like an entire Kehilla following the practice of using royal blue for the Paroches. Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation, is a Dovor ShaBeMinyan, is pretty close to fantasy. Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from stories and hearsay from Poskim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:53:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502165329.GE14957@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:29AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from : stories and hearsay from Poskim. Are you REALLY saying that RIB should not accept an answer he personally received from his own rebbe? Or that we shouldn't accept that he can quote that answer verbatum, albeit with a "(emphasis is mine)"? If that's not sufficient evidence of a person's position, no quote on the list works, and we might as well shut down. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 10:37:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:37:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502173731.GF14957@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:12:10PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can : sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that : don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? Don't buy all chameitz that has been sold, or all chameitz that was "sold" by a store than then proceeded to leave it on the shelves and sell individually over Pesach? The latter is the nearest I've seen in my experience to such communities. After all, it's more ready to conclude that the initial sale of all chameitz was a meaningless asmachta, and not a real sale than it is to conclude the storeowners were selling someone else's merchandise and stealing the profits. But if you mean that people aren't supposed to buy properly sold chameitz, yes that makes no sense -- the storeowner still suffers a hefsed merubah, just days later. In any case, I do not think we still hold that mechiras chameitz requires the hefsed to be merubah. OTOH, it's more than merely a "crazy chumerah", as Zev puts it. According to the Bach (OC 448 "ve'im") mechiras chameitz of the sort where nothing actually is moved to space the nakhri already owns was originally promulgated as a widespread practice specifically for "yayin saraf" dealers, and only because they can't move their full merchandise. (The actual mechanism is in the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6.) Resisting growth of a heter to include boxes we could just throw into the trunk of our car is quite different than "crazy chumerah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:24:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:24:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" mindset). Ben On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus > standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the > would-be guest"? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 01:03 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the > custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after > Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X > isn't good enough". 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how silly you think their reason. 2. As far as I'm concerned the "baked after Pesach" stickers are merely an indication that the product is fresh. -- 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 Mon May 2 12:21:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:21:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> <57279663.5050102@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727A8CE.4040308@zahav.net.il> From: Eli Turkel via Areivim > The following is probably mostly for Israel MO and based on observations > and not statistics > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article by > a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see below) may apply). The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev Shabbat: 1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). 2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza 3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is practiced). So what is the difference in this case? Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? On 5/2/2016 8:03 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how > silly you think their reason. Of course you can't. However, community leaders can decide what message to transmit. I heard Rav Amar state in the strongest terms that there is no benefit to buying chameitz products from a non-Jew (instead of from a Jew who sold his chameitz). He also discouraged looking for the "baked after Pesach" label. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:05:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:05:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! -- 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 Mon May 2 11:21:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279A8F.5020203@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 02:24 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus >> standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >> would-be guest"? > In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this > chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they > didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate > their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at > least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are > (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" > mindset). 1. There's a lot more to standards, especially on Pesach, than which hechsherim one trusts. You might trust more hechsherim than your relatives do, but not use some product from *any* hechsher that they do use, or have some practise at home that they don't. 2. If you are indeed sure that you are not more machmir than them, then the custom of not mixing would not apply in that specific case. The minhag is subject to the guest's discretion, not the host's; all it demands of the hosts is not to take offence. -- 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 Mon May 2 11:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 04:58:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R'MG Rabi has incorrectly assumed that I heard or similar, the words I QUOTED from Mori VRabbi Rav Hershel Schachter. As a rule when I write that it is a quote, it is a quote. I am an academic. In fact, it was an email directly to me verbatim, which I received after Pesach from Mori VRabbi. Again, it is wrong to make suppositions. I did not provide any name in my question to him as that is entirely irrelevant. Regarding your substantive question for the exact sources etc I will ask, however, he is a very busy person effectively also the lone Senior Posek for OU (has Rav Belsky a'h been replaced?) and RIETS as well as his daily shiurim at RIETS and being Rosh Yeshiva and Kollel etc and you will appreciate that his answer to the query may not be immediate. Dr Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 13:07:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:07:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727B36A.7000303@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 03:22 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > On May 3, 2016 4:05 AM, "Zev Sero" > wrote: >> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: >>> Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation >> The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! > Correct, it's predicated upon factually incorrect information However on being challenged he refused to back this claim up. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 14:41:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:41:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can > indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. Zvi Lampel (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) [The attached PDF was identical to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/51283 -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 15:43:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 00:43:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: RAM mentioned that: > last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining > the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and > explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on > Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an > expression of stepping." ... and asked: > How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 > years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? As you yourself wrote earlier in that post, the French call the holiday paques (with an accent circonflexe on the a, but that renders badly on Avodah). It is derived from the Latin, like the Spanish pascua, too. I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke of genius that serves its purpose well. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 22:27:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 01:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: <64eee8.a68b9f3.445990cc@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach >....Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. ... [--RAM] And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL >>>>>> You don't inspect the host's kitchen because you don't eat in his house! That's the point! Chassidim and others have this minhag of "not mishing" on Pesach --" not mixing" our meals with other families. This custom of not eating at other people's houses on Pesach has its source in this, precisely: the desire not to insult anyone, not to embarrass anyone and not to hurt anyone's feelings on this of all holidays, the one holiday when we are all more careful than usual about what we will and will not eat. The "unfriendly" chassidishe minhag has a very friendly corollary, at least in chutz la'aretz where we have two days of yom tov: On the last day of Pesach we /davka/ go out to eat or invite others to our homes and make a point of "mishing." If you don't have anyone over for a meal at least you go out visiting other people's homes in the afternoon, and make a point of eating something there. It's sort of like a sukka hop, you try to visit a few different homes and also host a few different people in your home. At least this was the minhag in my family growing up and among the people I knew in my youth. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 23:35:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >>Two bundles of goods >>may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. >>So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God >>really want that? [--RDR] Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such natural evils. Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Properly speaking "evil" only refers to something that has a moral dimension. The question of "Why does G-d allow evil?" has an obvious answer -- to allow scope for bechira, for free will. That doesn't fully answer the question, of course. We see many cases where He thwarts the nefarious plots of our enemies, which leaves us with aching questions in those cases when He seemingly stands by and does /not/ thwart their plots -- the Holocaust being the most wrenching example. There are a lot of answers but perhaps none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be called evil at all (unless you want to impute evil motives to the Borei c'v!). Rather, here the question is "Why is there suffering in the world?" This is a different question from the question of why does He allow evil people to commit evil deeds. Again there are many different answers, some of which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as well as Divine reasons we can't think of. "Evil" and "suffering" can overlap, as when evil people cause other people to suffer, but they are still two different categories. BTW the idea that a benevolent G-d "couldn't" or "wouldn't" do this or that is an arrogant and ignorant idea, the product of puny human minds. And compared to our Creator, even the most brilliant human mind is puny. Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I did ask Him to take them away. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 04:10:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: I wrote: > This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of > the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? > > Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of > the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? #1) In the article cited, much was made of an incident when Rava went to visit Rav Nachman, who was Rava's rebbe, and was thus presumably at least as strict as Rava. (See the article for more information, and for various ways of understanding that gemara.) #2) I, personally, am not very knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of this practice, such as who follows it, or to what extent they follow it. That's whay I can't answer your question by pointing to people who won't even eat in their parents' homes; I have no idea whether or not this practice really goes that far. HOWEVER, I do presume that the author of the article is familiar with these things, and near the beginning of the article, he writes: > perhaps the most intriguing of Pesach stringencies is the widespread > minhag not to eat anyone else's food during the Pesach holiday, even > if the other person keeps their chumros. It seems from this that Rabbi Reiss *is* aware of people who avoid eating other food, even when they do know that their standards have not been otherwise lessened. There can be many ways of knowing this, without "make[ing] an inspection of the host's kitchen and review[ing] all of the products he uses ... insulting to the host", such as when they are close family members, or friends, and/or the host actually invites the guest to examine his products and practices. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 06:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:43:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah Message-ID: The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon are factually correct? Those I have communicated with seem to be incapable or unwilling. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:20:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:43:08PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, : anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon : are factually correct? Which fact are you not sure of: 1- That until a couple of decades before the teshuvah people did not count kneading time toward the kedei hilukh mil, and then people (at least around Easter Europe) did? 2- That rushing the kneading because it now has to fit within the mil along with baking time would increase the chance that there was unkneaded flour on or in the matzah? 3- That the Baal haTanya is brighter than you, and should be second-guessed with care? Even if someone known to be brilliant makes a mistake, you know it's not likely to be a trivial one. 4- Or, the original topic.... That I would find it unlikely that RMF would consider a minhag endorsed by the SA haRav should be dropped without very strong motive? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:28:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:28:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products; e.g, my wife makes mayonnaise for Pesach, although I no longer churn butter, as he did -- yeridas hadoros): I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.. I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no alternative. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:40:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503144014.GA18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:43:39AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also : be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that : gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the : meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke : of genius that serves its purpose well. Much of what gets called "chassidishe Torah" is similar -- it's not a real answer to the question posed, but it is real Torah. Presented in a way that makes a roshem on a listener. As for etymologies, I think there is also a gray area. "Yarmulka" is a term in a number of Slavic languages for whatever cap the locals wore. But if no one had created the folk etymology of "yarei Malka", would the term have become as widespread or as long-lived as it did? Historically, the name Shneiur is from Signor or perhaps Spanish Sen~or, or most likely the original Latin "Senior", which means "Zaqein", with all the implications of sagicity. But I think more Shneiurs today are named for the shnei or of Shabbos licht. Especially since that's why R Aharon and Rn Rivqah Chanah Perel Kotler chose the name for their son, born Friday evening. (BTW, RSK was a dapper looking man in his Chevron days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Kotler#/media/File:Rabbi_Shneur_Kotler.jpg Found it while looking to confirm the story about when he was born.) OTOH, Marche-shvan vs "Mar Cheshvan" has halachic import, and one cannot let the folk etymology cause people to write the wrong thing on a gett; nor to forget that the month names were from galus Bavel, and not related to the Hebrew word "mar". But in general, folk etymologies too have causitive power. (It's just that in my last example, I think we need to resist it.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:09:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:09:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> References: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160503150952.GB18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:38AM -0400, Rn Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without : Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents : for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. : : But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects : and other such natural evils. : I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Yes, but fixing my misspeech doesn't change my point. To apply the correction: Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. : none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that : we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. Does that necessarily mean we cannot know His Goals either, or only how they play out in practice? IOW, perhaps we can conclude that HYashem wants a world of hatavah, including being meitiv us with the joy of being able to be meitivim ourselves, without knowing why that means He would choose providing Tov in one case and why He left us on our own in another. : The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be : called evil at all... True, but if we correct my language, then the question too needs correction: How is the existence of *suffering* consistent with the Existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent G-d? : which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of : the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as : well as Divine reasons we can't think of. Including free will. For all I know, Hashem lets certain diseases foster because He Wants to give us the opportunity to cure them. That does not address His Choice of victims, though. I suggested four answers to theodicy, keneged arba banim: The chakham doesn't really answer it, he instead asks "How does Hashem want me to respond?" The rasha gets yisurim as punishment. In the Haggadah we tell him that its not the tragedy that is leading him to rejecting G-d its his rejection of G-d that led him to the tragedy. The tam gets yisurim shel ahavah. He didn't do anything wrong, but he is shaken out of the rut that keeps him from trying to be a chakham. And the she'eino yodea' lish'ol gets the life he does because, well, there are times where the thing we want is a greater nisayon, than the situation we find tragic. And if we are not up to the challenge, if its a test that we couldn't pass, G-d doesn't make us face it. I say it better and with more backing at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pesach-5761-the-four-sons-confront-tragedy But my point in my earlier post wasn't whether or not theodicy is answeable, but that the issue of theodicy was simply ignored by the philosophy professor giving the online course I pointed to. Which, in turn, was why I thought that a translation of something R Sherky said to university students (repeated from Twitter) requires more examiunation of the original. To repeat (since I find this topic more useful than trying to answer tzadiq vera lo): : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? "Can't find"? This professor of philosophy missed a huge theological topic. My guess is that "lo nimtza" was translated overly literally and RYS was replying to questioned for which no answer exists. And yes, someone should be intellectually honest enough to give up his religion if it really were disproven. An impossible hypothetical (we know a Torah-follower's religion won't ever really be disproven, beyond minor misunderstood peratim); so not very meaningful, but not something it would shock me to hear a rav say. : Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. : But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, : a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, : and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I : really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained : from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I : did ask Him to take them away. I said something similar recently about "lir'os es atzmo ke'ilu hu yatza miMitzrayim" . I wrote about how the RBSO put into process even before I was born events that caused my lymphoma to be diagnosed while still in stage 1, BH and ba"h. A rare form of lymphoma that (as of 2010) had only afflicted two other people, both rescue workers who helped look for their comrade's remains in the weeks after 9/11. Here's just the post-script: To be intellectually honest: The story loses some of its impact if you think about Office Ryan and Firefighter Endicott's families, who lost their love ones specifically because they were determined to give other rescue workers' families the closure of being able to make a funeral. On 9/11 itself, for every story retold of someone who was spared being there because they were out doing some mitzvah is a story of someone who seems no less deserving who was killed in the attack. Every life has its own story. I cannot know G-d's calculus in my own, never mind in others'. But the mystery of tzadiq vera lo (why the righteous suffer) doesn't free me from feeling grateful for the good in my life (hakaras hatov) and feeling thankful to the ones -- or in this case the One -- who provide it (hoda'ah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503151406.GC18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:28:43PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which : had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products... : I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree : of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted : practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no : alternative. Which is the only way the minhag could be non-offensive. I am reminded of the rav who establishes a policy not to eat in any mispallel's home, so that no one is offended by their rabbi having to judge their home's kashrus as insufficient. Still, I think it would be elegant if people who have the minhag of misht zikh nisht adopt the minhag of Maimouna. We might not be able to eat together on Pesach, but let's all share the simchas Isru Chag! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 10:08:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160503170842.GD18204@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:46:56PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law : of the excluded middle. : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle However, not only does RYBS's discussion of bein hashemashos really rely on defying the law of contradiction by saying "both" rather than the excluded middle's "something in between", so does his invocation of "almanas isa" and "isa lashon safeiq hu" -- safeiq is a dough. For that matter, the same could be said of erev (although RYBS didn't) -- an irbuvia of day and night. So I think that RYBS actually meant that halakhah had no law of contradiction. Which may be a consequence of allowing middle values between yes and no, I haven't found it spelled out anywhere. BTW, the notion that a tenai needs to be said in both positive and negative is also relevant, as only saying "I promise to do X if Y" is insufficient if Y could be both true and false or somewhere between true and false -- in those cases, whether or not I commit to doing X is ambiguous. Eg "I promise to do X if the next person to enter the room is tall" would lead to a she'eilah if the person walking in is a 5'11" American man (where Google the average is 5'10"). "Tall" is a non-boolean predicate -- a person could be somewhat tall, and not just because it's a matter of opinion, but between there is a gray area about the bottom of the set. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:19:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 01:19:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I am seeking the facts that the Teshuvah employs to support a Halachic ruling that Gebrochts is Assur. so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - 1] until a couple of decades beforehand kneading time was not included in the kedei hilukh mil time 2] this reduced production time created a credible risk of flour remaining in the baked Matzah? I am nowhere near the lofty heights of the BaAl HaTanya. But I am commanded, as is all of BNY, to learn and question and as R Ch Voloshiner says [Paskens?] we are not permitted to accept a ruling or a Peshat if there are questions that remain unanswered. It seems that we are having a dispute about RMF arguing with a Minhag endorsed by the SA HaRav. I propose that since Gebrochts is without Halachic foundation, it does not require Hatarah. Others think this is impossible since the SH HaRav endorses Gebrochts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:55:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:55:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160503185522.GA28828@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:19:27AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 . (Same as when we had this same conversation 3 years ago.) Twenty years is mentioned on 476, the paragraph that beging "Ve'af" -- "...ad shemiqarov zeh esrim shanah o yotseir, nishpatah zehirus zu beYisrael qedoshim, lemaheir me'od me'od belishah..." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 20:12:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5728E9FB.8010609@zahav.net.il> A close friend told me that he his uncle (and family) would come to his father's home for seder (in Poland before the war), bring his own food and table cloth, and by doing this was considered to be meiqil. Ben On 5/3/2016 4:28 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on > Pesach, unless there was no alternative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 09:42:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jonathan Traum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> Message-ID: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> > Lisa Liel wrote: >>> According to >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >>> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's >> berakhah >> of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw >> from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? I can't say with any authority what was in Yaakov Avinu's thoughts there, but lion imagery in the ancient world certainly does seem to predate him. On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > ... > But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's > question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves > are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The king of the wild animals is the lion..." Jonathan Traum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:12:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah Message-ID: In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on the other. Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from joining together for a meal 2) RSZA always took simchat shabbat/yomtov into account in his piskei halacha. A rabbi who is machmir not to allow using a shabbat elevator may be forcing someone who lives on the 30th floor to spend every shabbat without a minyan and without any company and certainly without oneh shabbat. RSZA was an advocate of tzomet because he felt it important to help especially the disadvantaged. Thus, he felt it important to invent a wheelchair good for invalids that can be used on shabbat 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also important even when it relies on DNA evidence. This is just a sampling of many areas where some poskim try and be conservative while RMA insists that just blindly doing the old thing is not necessarily the conservative or macmir way. His favorite analogy is a group of people who live in the tropics and wear swimwear. Because of circumstances they move to a colder area. There now arises a dispute should they continue to wear swimwear because thats what their ancestors wore or do they change to warmer clothing. The change is also meant to be conservative: the ancestors wore clothing that matched the climate and so they should wear clothing that match the clothing. The reformists change clothing simply because they dont care what the ancestors wore -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 13:15:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 16:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> Message-ID: <572906F0.5020105@sero.name> On 05/03/2016 12:42 PM, Jonathan Traum via Avodah wrote: > On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> >But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's >> >question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves >> >are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? > ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The > king of the wild animals is the lion..." Yes, it does now. As the result of this discussion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 14:45:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:45:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <000801d1a585$16ecdbf0$44c693d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RET wrote > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article > by a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel And RBW replied: >RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see >below) may apply). >The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev >Shabbat: >1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). >2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza >3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. >Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. >Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is >practiced). So what is the difference in this case? >Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? Of course, this is just a reiteration of the discussion we had last year - here is my post. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n069.shtml#10 The positions cited here appear to be taken directly from the Rav Poelim. See the citation there regarding the issur of handling food on fast days. >Ben Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 06:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos Message-ID: RBen Waxman cited the following: "This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issue." Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 05:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:04:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] women cutting hair in the omer Message-ID: I just saw that ROY paskens that women are allowed to cut their cut during the sefirah. Does anyone know if this is widely accepted? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 14:43:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:43:42 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Avoid situations that embarrass In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline. A story that displays a slightly different perspective - the visitor who insisted on drinking his tea in the host's Succah when the host who was not enjoying the best of health was entertaining the guest in his house. The host accompanied his guest explaining to the now uncomfortable guest, I am exempt from the mitzvah of Succah but obligated in the mitzvah of Hachnossas Orchim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 17:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160505004747.GB22983@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:34:09PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The : Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish : Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside : world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to : others subunits (e.g. ethnic). I am curious to see that article, because I would have thought the causality was the reverse. The Rama knew of an Ashkenazi mesorah that had numerous differences with Sepharadi pesaq since well before the SA. It was on that basis thyat he was able to categorize the SA as "their" rulings. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 11th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 strict justice? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 04:50:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:50:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would > be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in > the universe at all. > > But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. > Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence not a real good at all. But suppose we leave the world of mussar, where my goal is to grow spiritually by becoming a better person, and improving the relationship between myself and Hashem. Instead, let's focus on getting more social. It's not that I want to improve myself, but that I want to do things that other people will benefit and get pleasure from. In a world where people are busy interacting, but the laws of nature prohibit Nazis, the problem is not that good doesn't *exist*. The problem is that good isn't recognized or appreciated. Everyone is always doing nice things to everyone else, so much so that the beneficiaries don't notice it. Not because they are ungrateful, but because they literally don't notice it -- they have nothing to compare it to. This is how the world runs. What else might one expect? And THAT's why there is "no real good in the universe at all." Ad caan, RMB's reisha. But this only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Evil -- or at least the potential for it -- is necessary so that we can appreciate the good. What about congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering? My first reaction is to give the same answer as above: No one will appreciate good health unless bad health is a possibility. And then I feel ashamed of my insensitivity, my hardheartedness, my callousness. How can I not cry for the babies struggling in pain, just so I can score some points in this discussion? But, truth be told, that insensitivity reared its head many paragraphs ago, when we first contemplated "a world without Nazis". Are the victims of "naturally caused suffering" entitled to more consideration than the victims of Nazi-caused suffering? I don't think so. My heart goes out to both of them, to all of them, and I feel guilty, wondering about where my heart is when I thank G-d for the good He has given me. I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 20:02:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 05:02:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> On 5/3/2016 8:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on > the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on > the other. > > Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) > > 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be > machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without > kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from > simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from > joining together for a meal. If the parents of a Sefardi son in law > can provide him with halaq meat 52 weeks out of a year, he can deal > with their rice issue one week a year. I know that I sound like a broken record but . . . We have a long history of chumrot in kashrut and a long history of dealing with them. Kintiyot can be dealth with, halachakly and culinarily, just like almost all of these issues. Having an in law with food allergies is going to present much more of a challenge to a host than having an in law who doesn't eat rice. > > > 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most > halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is > overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity > might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone > agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA > points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as > inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also > important even when it relies on DNA evidence. > For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:08:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:08:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: yom hazikaron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the importance of standing during the siren on yom hazikaron by Rav Stav (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=4174 on aveilut vs chol hamoed during sefira by Rav Cherlow (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=5629 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:20:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 18:20:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572B72D1.2030303@zahav.net.il> Rav Tawil was basing himself on a psak given by Rav Ovadia Yosef, tz"l, which is summarized here: http://halachayomit.co.il/he/Default.aspx?HalachaID=3938 KT Ben On 5/4/2016 3:26 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > ? ? ? Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet > repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, > even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would > seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. > ? > EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:15:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:15:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben _____________________________________________ IMHO DNA is a real Pandora's box which it seems that poskim are taking an approach that to an outsider might be viewed as pragmatic (vs intellectually mandated) by accepting it as a secondary sirgn but not primary so as to specifically not get into the parentage issue. What will happen when everyone's dna/genetic map is available feom a simple stick test? 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:24:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:24:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1255?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=96_=EE=F1=E5?= =?windows-1255?b?+OQg4fnh5fIg4Of4IPTx5w==?= Message-ID: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160505154013.GF22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:50:01AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change : anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics : categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind : to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. I am not in your target audience, as I am happy with my current answer and thus probably too closed minded on this question to be influenced, but... : RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he : free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then : whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not : the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence : not a real good at all... Not my intent. Let me explain what I was trying to say from a different direction. What makes free will possible? The fact that we can think about thinking. Bechira chofshi and being aware of one's own thoughts and feelings (or a subset of them) go hand-in-hand. When we think about and make decisions based on that metacognizent "inputs" we are able to change how we think and truly exercise BC. I think this underlize REED's concept of a nequdas habechirah. It is only at the "battlefront" between two warring desires/drives that BC comes into play because it is only there that the decision happens slow even to occur consciously. You might recall that when we discussed tza'ar baalei chaim (in at least 2 iterations), I suggested that while animals feel pain, they have no "I" about which they could think "I am in pain". Pain, but without a critical element that turns it into true suffering. I gave a neurological argument -- animals lack the part of prefrontal cortext we use to do metacognizance, so why assume they can? Maybe when it comes to animals, the Behaviorists are right. But I also made a hashkafic argument. If a thinking being could be aware of the thinking itself, and think about thinking, it would have free will. Since only people have BC, which in the opinion of many (including the Meshekh Chokhmah) is that very tzelem E-lokim, they can't be self-aware of their thought. Pain as a stimulus away from something, but not "Oy am I in pain!" of true suffering on a human level. So I was making a philosophical point about the goodness. Not that it lacks worth of purpose, but the ability to enjoy good and the ability to make decisions go hand-in-hand. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:48:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:48:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160505154808.GG22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:02:38AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be : declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth : it? Mamzeirus is not a good example for a general discussion of chumeros. Kivan denitma nitma. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that we are to ignore most sefeiqos -- safeiq mamzer in a yichus-ly kosher community, or a mamzer in a safeiq community. (See for a nice discussion.) I think it would be assur to check mamzeirus using DNA, except in those few cases where we otherwise are chosheish for the safeiq anyway, like a shetuqi or asufi. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim Message-ID: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> H/T Mosaic Magazine See : Bible Odyssey Who Were the Sadducees? by Michael L. Satlow ... The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq, the name of the high priest at the time of King David (1Kings 1:39). Later sources also link the Sadducees to the priesthood (for example, Acts 4:1). However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. In the uproar that ensued, a Sadducee convinced Hyrcanus to abandon the Pharisees for the Sadducees. Whether true or not, this story might point to the Sadducees' origin as a political party allied with the Hasmoneans. Josephus tantalizingly mentions that the Sadducees ascribe authority to Scripture, not to the ancestral traditions handed down by the Pharisees: ... I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion i a dichotomy. Also, what kind of news is in that the Chashmonaim were in league with the Tzeduqim? Regardless of Josephus's story, why wouldn'tthe family that held the power of both Kohein Gadol and Melekh want to deprecate any form of Judaism that would make them share power with the rabbinate? Can the more historically informed please comment if this post is a non-story (which finding it in Mosaic Magazine led me to doubt) or what the chiddush is here? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:55:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:55:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=E2=80=93_=D7=9E?= =?utf-8?b?16HXldeo15Qg15HXqdeR15XXoiDXkNeX16gg16TXodeX?= In-Reply-To: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> References: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <572B7B0D.3050906@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 10:24 AM, Lawrence Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see > http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e 1) Every Ashkenazi siddur says that in summer we say vesein brocho and (in places where it's customary) morid hatol, and in winter we say tal umotor and mashiv horuach. Since we are now saying the former, it is summer, and wishing each other a good summer is therefore appropriate. 2) There is no pressure on anyone to bake a shlissel challah. The blogger is engaging in a fantasy so he can rant about it. Rather, every year we are subjected to ranting from opponents of this custom who can't bear the thought that some people do have it. The blogger has his mesorah, and good on him for adhering to it, but it is irrelevant to the vast majority of us who do not share it. Those who don't have this particular custom of are free not to do it, and nobody will denounce them for it; but they must have the same respect for those who do it, whether because their ancestors did it as far back as anyone knows, or because they heard about it last week and decided it sounded like a nice thing to do. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 10:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:19:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572B80AB.3050808@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 12:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. He was not accused of being a mamzer but a chalal, because his mother had once been kidnapped and was thus unfit to be married a kohen. We don't need to go to Josephus for this story, it's a braisa in Kiddushin 66a. > I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually > led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion > is a dichotomy. The article makes the same point: "In antiquity, there was no neat division between politics and religion". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 12:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:41:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <520b4de4-831a-8f00-6b0d-1cd935504656@starways.net> On 5/5/2016 7:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > See : ... > by Michael L. Satlow ... > ... > The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the > Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term > Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq... The myth that the Tzedukim got their name from Tzadok the Kohen Gadol has zero basis to it. Except maybe the quote from Acts, which has no weight. The origin of the Tzedukim appears in Avot d'Rabbi Natan, where we find that the eponymous Tzadok was one of the talmidim of Antigonus Ish Socho. > However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not > as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus > mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high > priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer]... Also, despite Josephus's claims, the accusation wasn't that he was a mamzer; it was that he was a chalal. The article is a non-story. Lisa [To be fair without bothering to post a full reply for something off-topic: The original had a word I wasn't comfortable repeating on-list, starts with a "b", so I assumed the usual back-translation to the Hebrew. I have no idea what Josephus actually wrote, nor do I expect a Xian to bother explaining chalal rather than use a general term for what used to be called an "illegitimate" child. So I don't know if it's Josephus's claims that's off or a miscommunication caused by my trying to be overly frummy. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:53:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know how you can say that. Admittedly, the Creator apparently wanted a world in which there are both Nazis /and/ birth defects, since that's the world He created. But there is a HUGE difference between the two -- between the pain caused by evil people through their own free will, and the suffering that occurs as the result of disease and other natural causes. One thought experiment will illustrate the difference. Imagine a mother whose child dies as the result of a birth defect. Let's even say the child dies after a period of pain and suffering. Now imagine another mother whose child dies because a Nazi snatched the child from her arms and killed the child in some sadistic way, in front of the mother's eyes. Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:29:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 06:29:53 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? or within it? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:22:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:22:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when > there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. > Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF > Every case is judged on its own. I was just an eid to a get of the sort, where certain kullot in the berurei sheimot were accepted because it was such a kind of get lechumra. In other situations, we may be quicker to allow a kitvu uttenu for a civil marriage divorce. As I said, every case is judged on its own. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:42:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:42:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrot Message-ID: In light of the comments of Rabbi Folger and others let me restate my opinion of chumrot. There are several levels of chumrot and kulot 1) The chumrah is personal and doesn't affect anyone else - perfectly OK but one shouldn't gloat or look down on those who don't accept the chumra 2) At the other extreme are things like monetary manners where every chumra for one side is a kula for the other side 3) For things in between one has to compare the chumra to the "price" being paid So for kitniyot - the prohibition is relatively mild but OTOH doing without the specific kitniyot is not a major deal either (in most cases) I personally get annoyed at husbands that won't carry (or push the carriage) even with an eruv but the wife does everything. I am not sure how much the women really volunteer. In any case the hardship is relatively mild (again in most cases) The harder cases are where the prohibition is more severe but the effects are more severe Examples from before include shabbat problems that might prevent one from leaving home every shabbat and ruining on a long term basis oneg shabbat. As Rabbi Folger points out various cases of gittin. Also cases involving DNA or other forms of controversial evidence. The main point R Avraham was making is that rabbis who take a "conservative: stance are not always being machmir since the effect on others may be severe. At times the more innovative approach may be the real conservative way. i.e. it saves the principle of the halacha rather than just some formality which is no longer relevant. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 07:59:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:59:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah Message-ID: RET wrote: > 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt > that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out > that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when > they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects > many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. Actually, that simply doesn't reflect the most widespread position on civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 05:34:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:34:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula Message-ID: <> Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one can't accept it in many other cases -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:14:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:14:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of > divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the > key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. > Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single > case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to > avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a > proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. > -- > Arie Folger, >> > chumrot that don't have side effects are fine. As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 16:29:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Schlissel Challah Message-ID: <20160506232927.GA27784@aishdas.org> Since everyone has to have a schlissel chalah post... Really I think it is about sources of yeast right after Pesach. There was no starter dough, so people would use beer foam. Beer foam yeast is too acrive for good dough. Fortunately, iron slows down yeast action. A key is a small convenient piece of iron to throw into the mix. But it is common for minhagim to be born from inventing reasons for things people already do. In this case... It relates to the key of rain and finances, described in Taanis 2, one of the three (or two of the four) keys that Hashem never delegates. If so, it is a reminder just as the wheat comes in, and. in the lands Ashkenazim were living in too. (The fresh grass which becomes a milk abundance just on time for Shavuos and Wittesmontag.) A reminder from Whom the spring wealth comes. And to thank Him accordingly, rather than to take credit. If so, ironically (for the naysayers), the custom is all about how wealth comes directly from G-d, not via angels, spiritual mechanisms, or tricks. Do you have a problem with dipping an apple in honey and other such simanei milsa of Rosh haShanah? Those too are symbols. The problem isn't with schlissel chalah. If people observed the custom for the kinds of reasons listed in this post, there would be nothing to object to. The problem I have is that it seems to have caught on beyond the original community because of people having magical thinking, trying to get HQBH to give them their wealth through segulah instead of (rather as inspiration for) the hard and long work of earning reward for being a better Jew. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 13th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 necessary for a good relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 14:26:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 00:26:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? Message-ID: I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). Shavua Tov, Hodesh Tov! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 19:49:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572EA93A.7030509@sero.name> On 05/07/2016 05:26 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). I am looking at a block of Tenuva salted butter, which bears the mehadrin hechsher of Tenuva's own rabbi, R Weitman, and also the hechsherim of the OU and Chug Chasam Sofer. I assume Chug Chasam Sofer is a mehadrin-only hechsher. Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk. It's also available in 10g and 200g with the mehadrin hechsher, and also in 10g and 100g with the hechsher of Badatz Edah Hacharedit. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=581 Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=582 However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to have this problem. http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/salted-butter http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/butter -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 21:35:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 07:35:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages > with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk... > > Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and > only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk... > > However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to > have this problem.... Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 22:00:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 01:00:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> On 05/08/2016 12:35 AM, Simon Montagu wrote: > > Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? Well, I don't see how it can be a halachic issue, since they do sell it with the mehadrin hechsher in the USA, to consumers whose kashrut standards are presumably the same those of Israeli mehadrin consumers. Nor, given the size and internal diversity of the Israeli mehadrin market, and its overlap with the USA one, can it plausibly be attributed to a cultural difference. What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available in 100g packs, in either country. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 8 20:36:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 06:36:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> Message-ID: <87b8dde5-91ed-0b4e-3d8f-268d85c4c13f@starways.net> On 5/8/2016 8:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available > in 100g packs, in either country. > The idea of salted butter was originally to be able to sell the butter longer. If the butter has gone off (rancid) a little, salting it hides that. So a lot of people refuse to buy salted butter, figuring that if it's unsalted, they *know* whether it's good or not, and they can always salt it themselves if they want. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 04:36:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:36:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RavSharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< ... Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. >>> The difference that I see, is that in one case the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards Hashem, and in the second case, the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards both Hashem and the Nazi. But as I understand this conversation, we are discussing theodicy, which is the question of "How can a good God allow such a thing to happen?" And in that regard I see no difference between the two cases. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 10:37:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160509173704.GA27325@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 05:41:13PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger :> The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can :> indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. : : I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... : where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in : fact it implies the opposite Then why would you think tht was the reference? Pesach 30 is where he discusses zeh le'umas zeh, so mybe they're talking about the implied lack of a law of contradiction? (Ie that creation comes in paradoxical pairs.) YOu are asking for a source for something I have been repeating since before its appearance in Avodah vol 1, something I learne from R' Aryeh Kaplan. Sources, even my notebook from those days, are not at hand. But I'm working on it -- al titya'esh. Actually, I am on the hunt for where I saw the point in seifer haHigayon. The Ramchal defined higayon as a tool the seikhel was given. I am just looking for where I found it explicit that logic was created for people. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 15:52:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi writes: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface > which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." > > May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? > > Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour > WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the kneading specifically. Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:02:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160510010206.GA9905@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 6:52pm EDT, R Akiva Miller: : I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then : flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, : I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the : kneading specifically. : Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? : I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 2:55pm EDT, I wrote: > Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos > Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 > . -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57313304.90006@sero.name> On 05/09/2016 06:52 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Teshuvah #6, in the Shu"t at the back of volume 6. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=486 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=487 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 20:09:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:09:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: Many thanks to R' Zev Sero and R' Micha Berger for sending me links to the HebrewBooks.org edition, and at almost the same instant. R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a > little flour on their surface which is a consequence > of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." I responded: > I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in > the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. > If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the > general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the > kneading specifically. I now suspect that the situation was a bit different than I had imagined. I would like to suggest that the matzos described by the Alter Rebbe had plain flour through and through, as a result of the dough being dry and hard, and difficult to knead, exactly as described. But the Rebbe complained only about the flour on the outside, and I suspect that this is because it presents a bigger halachic problem than the flour on the inside. I first got this feeling in the paragraph "V'hinei eineinu", though I can't point to any specific words where he might have said this. But in the paragraph "V'af d'haMagen Avraham", he is machmir on one who crumbles his matza into the soup, but he is meikil for one who puts matza balls into the soup. What I translated as "matza balls" are, more precisely in his words, "ground matza that they make into rounds (agulim)", and the room for leniency is because it can be judged to be a ta'aroves. I'm going into some detail here, because he is NOT talking about crumbling some matza into a dry bowl, which would contain a mixture of matza meal and flour, and the flour would lose its identity to the matza meal before it ever got wet. No, that's not what he is talking about. He makes explicit reference to these balls which were made previously, and were added to the soup afterward, I am at a loss to explain the advantage of these matza balls over one who crumbles his matza directly into the soup. The only advantage I see is that one who crumbles the matza into his soup is making chometz personally, whereas in the other case the chometz was made in the kitchen when the matza balls were fashioned. (Footnote 45 there might be saying something similar.) Be that as it may, it leads me to a very wild guess that when the dough is not kneaded well, it will have flour on the inside, and although one might think that this flour is subject to chimutz, the truth is that there is some room for leniency because that flour is batel to the matza itself. However, this leniency applies only to the flour inside the matza, and not to the flour on the outer surface of the matza. Again, this paragraph is only a wild guess that I offer to the group. (On a side point, I'd like to ask about the modern "hard (kasheh)" dough that the Alter Rebbe described. Why was it hard? I can understand spending less time kneading it so that it can be rushed into the oven, but the Rebbe seems to feel that the consistency of the dough changed too. Why would anyone think that using less water is a good idea? Kneading a bread dough is hard work, and it seems like common sense to me that if we want to knead it well, you'd use *more* water, not less. Does extra water accelerate the chimutz, independently of the temperature of that water?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 03:50:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:50:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach?" The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz that was sold to a goy in Israel because none of the hechsherim (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one is checking that it is true. See for example http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X9_D8LFI5O8/UWEoF_JIlgI/AAAAAAAAAc4/XDKyPFsMN7Q/s1600/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%94+%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8+%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.jpg Some people rely on checking product codes which tells them when the product was made. However, this is not that useful. All it says is that the product was made after Pesach. However, every Chometz product has chometz ingredients in it (at least flour which is most probably chometz because it was washed) and the consumer has no way of knowing when the chometz ingredients were made and who owned over them over Pesach. For example even if you only buy cookies that were made after Pesach you have no idea what flour was used. It is very possible/probable that the flour used to make the cookies was chometz and was sold for Pesach. Som people only eat things that were made with flour that was fround after Pesach. However there a problem with this as well. Flour in Israel is very low in gluten and therefore won't rise well unless gluten is added. All bakeries add gluten to the flour in all baked goods. There is no gluten produced in Israel, it is all imported mostly from Germany, France, and China. Gluten by definition is chamtez gamur . Because it needs to be imported gluten must be SOLD to a Goy over Pessach; unless the bakeries want to close shop for a few weeks waiting for a new shipment. Since they start making bread literally a few hours after Pesach is over they must be using gluten that they sold to a goy. Therefore, even if the bread says baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach, the gluten was most definitely sold and therefore you are relying on the sale to a goy. In other words they are pulling the wool over your eyes. They say that it was baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach but conveniently leave out the bit about gluten that was sold. (source http://www.bhol.co.il/9196/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.html ) In short, this is a chumra that makes people feel frum but has no basis in halacha and is in fact not really possible to keep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 04:13:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:13:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Message-ID: R' Elazar Teitz wrote: "I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.." On the other hand there is a famous story (printed in the Brisker Haggada and in HaRav MiBrisk) about the Brisker Rav visiting R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach in Vilna in 1941. The Brisker Rav thought that the sugar in Vilna had Kitniyos mixed in and therefore did not use it on Pesach. However, when the Brisker Rav visited R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach, R' Chaim Ozer served him tea with sugar which the Brisker Rav accepted and drank. Afterwards, someone (his son?) asked him why did he drink the tea with the sugar if there was a chashash of kitniyos in the sugar? He answered that not eating kitniyos is a minhag but being mevaze a talmid chacham is an issur d'oraysa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 08:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:52:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573203A1.3050503@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz > that was sold to a goy in Israel//because none of the hechsherim > (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) > hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when > things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the > manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one > is checking that it is true. Since it's only a chumra, why not just trust the manufacturer? Most manufacturers are honest, and if you happen to come across one who isn't you haven't really lost anything. In any case, while there are of course those who look for the "baked after Pesach" label for kashrus reasons, I assume that *most* people who look for this label do so as a guarantee of freshness. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 12:20:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 22:20:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:35:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:35:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f382b3d9eba7690e3482efc18d4e958@aishdas.org> On 2016-05-10 5:31 pm, H Lampel wrote: > Any luck with this? > > Zvi > On 5/2/2016 5:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. > > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. > > Zvi Lampel > (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) The truth is, this machloqes is something I was repeating since R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l was alive. (I mention it in Avodah vol. 1.) And RAK's presentation on logic that made it to print (years before my NCSY days) does not mention the Ramchal's side. Well, it does mention Derekh Hashem 1:1:5 but in the context of one of the paradoxes he's trying to resolve, not about allowing for paradoxes. So I'm trying to dig up an old memory of his stated source. I was thinking of a few places in sefer haHigayon and Derekh Tevunos, which I am still looking for. The Ramchal describes higayon and tevunah as tools Hashem created for a sekhel to use. I thought it was the haqdamah, but since not... The Maharal's model of machloqesin (on Avos 5:17) allows for paradoxes to result when we try to map the supernal Emes to olam hazeh. This point is not THAT relevant, but it's about machloqesin (perhaps only a subset, see end of Be'er 7 which says not every machloqes is eilu va'eilu), and I am writing to the Baal haDynamics. Anyway, it's not really a statement about logic, any more than saying that two shadows of a 3D object can differ and yet both be real shadows. (BTW, the copy of Dynamics in the beis medrash at Yeshiva of Greater Washington is well-worn and due for replacement or rebinding. I was just in the neighborhood for Grandparents' Day at my grandchildren's school.) I did post on-list (to appear in the next digest) that the nearest _pesach _30 gets to denying logic is that "zeh le'umas zeh" denies the law of contradiction. Which doesn't mean Hashem is above logic; it could just mean Hashem's logic isn't the classical one. Which I pointed out in a few halachic examples -- safeiq lashon isah hu appears to mean that a doubt is a coexistence of conflicting states, the need for a tenai to be in both positive and negative, etc... _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 Tue May 10 13:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:31:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57324535.7050501@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 03:20 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) They are discussing the buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), obviously, not the bison (Bison bison). Buffalo have been known in Europe and Asia for thousands of years, and have nothing to do with bison. Americans may be in the sloppy habit of calling bison "buffalo", but since neither the Mechaber nor the Rama were American this is irrelevant. Americans also have a fish they call "buffalo", but that's equally irrelevant. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:55:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:55:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Rav Tal on the state of Israel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160510235548.GA7880@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:10:45PM +0300, R Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim: > In these days of the yahrzeit of RAL there are many articles about > him. One article says that RAL objected strongly to the above > statements. He questions whether any rabbi has the "email address" > of hashem and knows what is helping or hindering the coming of Moshiach. His rebbe and FIL held a similar opinion. Which is why RYBS suggested to those talmidim who were going to say the Tefillah leShalom haMedinah that they might be able to get adding "shetehei" without arguments from the congregation May our Father who is in heaven bless Israel that it become the beginning of the flowering of our redemption, rather than asserting as a given that Israel is that beginning. R SY Alkalai and R ZH Kalisher, the first RZ (or religious proto-Zionist) voices, certainly did speak in terms of ge'ulah and qibbutz golios in the eschatological sense. However, R' Yitzcvhaq Reines, Mizrachi's founder, as well as R' Shmuel Mohilever were also non-messianic in their Zionism, and yet their Zionism was religious, not in addition to their religion. We've discussed in the past the fact that not all RZism is Messianic Zionism, and in fact amongst RZ gedolim, this opinion might not even have the majority. Depending, of course, on the fruitless exercise of defining who is a gadol. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:17:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:17:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to India. They did not initiate the discussion - The Be'ar Hagola tracks the source of that halacha to the Agur (Rabbi Yaakov Landau, 15th century) who was quoting Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron of 13th century Trani, Italy. In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water buffalo, an animal that is raised domestically as cattle in parts of Italy. It is from the milk of water buffalo that mozzarella cheese was originally made near Naples, Italy, and in southern Italy it is still used to make "authentic" mozzarella cheese. This would lead one to suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a kosher behamah (domesticated animal) see here for detals: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:38:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:38:21 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. ie from the halachic point of view is it a bigger problem having a memorial day in Nissan; or a simcha day in Iyar. and from a hashkafic view which is more problematic. the latter comes onto violation of 3 Oaths, idea of a 'secular' state in holy land etc . the former only that somehow holocaust is a prelude to a State, and that those who died resisting were somehow more valiant.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <57327651.5030802@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 04:17 PM, Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah wrote: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to > India. Not "likely". There's not even a hava amina otherwise. > In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water > buffalo Not just Italian but in pretty much every language, including English. > This would lead one to > suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, > were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a > kosher behamah (domesticated animal) Again, this is not a suspicion, it's a complete certainty, and I'm astonished that it even occurs to anyone to question it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:22:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 03:22:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0822d59a-9d49-b752-e005-a309ae78f4c0@starways.net> On 5/10/2016 11:38 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction > these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more > objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. Yom HaShoah is almost certainly more problematic. When the government of Israel asked the rabbis to make a Holocaust remembrance day, they were told that Tisha B'Av and Asara B'Tevet (Yom kiddush klal) covered it, and refused to create a separate day. The Knesset created Yom HaShoah themselves. It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious observances is likely to have a problem with it. Personally, I'm one of them, and while I won't walk down the sidewalk whistling on Yom HaShoah, I don't otherwise pay any attention to the day at all. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 23:56:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:56:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, *Bubalus bubalis*, native to > India. ... The question is then the halachic status of the American Bison - does it require kisui hadam and can one breed an american bison with cattle (beefalo) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 22:20:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 01:20:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re:, Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Micha Berger wrote: > Zvi Lampel wrote: > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... >: where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in >: fact it implies the opposite R. Micha responded: > Then why would you think that was the reference? My answer: Because you wrote so in reply to me previously: > Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:33:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Micha Berger" > Subject: Re: IS THE WORLD GOOD? ... >> ZL: can you direct me to where the Ramchal, too, says this?) > > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See > , where I > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and > Pischei Chokhmah 30. And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 03:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> References: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160511100415.GC11561@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:20:03AM -0400, H Lampel wrote: : > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I : > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See : > , where I : > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and : > Pischei Chokhmah 30. : And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without : citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Because there we were discussing something about logic and theology in general -- that it has no law of excluded middle. Or in English, the specific rule of paradoxes does not apply to G-d nor the shorashim of creation. And his version of the thesis of zeh le'umas zeh is in pesach 30. (R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) also uses zeh le'umas zeh and the idea that paradox is only prohibited bepo'al, not bemachashavah, to explain eilu va'eilu.) It is also sufficient for this conversation, as it shows that G-d can make a paradox manifest. However, I am still on the hunt for the source of the specific idea I was repeating from R' Aryeh Kaplan, that logic as a whole is a nivra rather than an aspect of Emes. (Work being what it has been the last week and a half, it's a very part time hunt.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 04:52:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asks: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) Google is wonderful. I entered "yoreh deah 28:4", and the third hit brought me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info about who they are) which says: > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) rules that one does not > perform kisuy hadam for a buffalo; this determines it to be a > beheimah. (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been meant. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 08:00:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:00:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160511150044.GE7880@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:52:18AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info : about who they are) which says: : : > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) ... : > (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, : > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years : > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... : Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been : meant. I think that is a list of other species for which the same logic would apply, and not other possible translations of buffalo. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 12:50:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:50:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 14:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5733A635.7040108@sero.name> On 05/11/2016 03:50 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile > "On the day that you are redeemed from the exile". Since lechol hade'os that has not yet happened (for instance, nobody has changed the davening to drop all the requests for the redemption, since it's already happened), it follows that hallel should *not* be said. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 23:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:52:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: A while back I did a shiur which touched on the efficacy of "Keil Maaleh's". I found one source which said to give tzedakah before making a keil maaleh rather than pledging to do so. This sounded extremely rational; deliver rather than promise. Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? 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 Thu May 12 00:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:44:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smartphone on shabbat Message-ID: *Zomet At The Crossroads* *> "Telegramma" - Speaking on a Smartphone on Shabbat */ The Zomet Institute At Zomet Institute we receive many requests on a wide range of subjects. One subject that keeps coming back is: When will you design a cellphone that can be used on Shabbat? This question comes from health and security personnel, who use a special telephone as part of their regular Shabbat routine, and who are looking for a way to use the new devices while keeping desecration of Shabbat to a minimum. We are happy to announce that in the last few weeks Zomet has finished the development of a smartphone "App" that uses a speaking device for Shabbat and where the keys are operated using the principle of "*gramma*" ? indirect action. Touching the screen merely changes the flow of an existing current, and therefore the smartphone can be used when there is a need for it. The " *Telegramma*" App is suitable for use only in cases of dire need, such as for matters related to health, security, or similar situations. The App is suitable for smartphones which operate on Android version 4 or higher, and it operates in conjunction with the Telegramma speaking device. For more details, contact us at www.zomet.org5-6]ssxhjxhhxnngntn/eng. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:31:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:31:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > observances is likely to have a problem with it. She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing shows that in the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:42:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:42:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic Message-ID: I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with the present discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: <<< Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? >>> Here's my guess: What will motivate one to donate beforehand? Emotions run high when the rav gives his Yizkor drasha (or at least, the emotions *ought* to run high). It's hard to get into that frame of mind before the event. This is not like other things where we are sure to prepare in advance, like preparing our matzos or our sukkah. If someone shows up at the Seder without matzos, the ramifications will insure that he will certainly remember next year. But if he arrives at Yizkor (or whenever) and forgot to donate beforehand, he'll simply promise to give after Yom Tov, and this b'dieved eventually became the standard. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57346F3E.5080102@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 06:42 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b > which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects > there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change > this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum > of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to > do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd > spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with > the present discussion That is what logicians say. See the Lewis quote in my .sig. But how do you know that it's true? Chassidus says that G-d *can* make A (which is greater than B, which is greater than C) less than C, if He wants to, because He created logic in the first place, and is not bound by it. Mekom ha'aron is the most famous example. Lewis would undoubtedly say that Chazal's description can't be true, because an object that takes up space can't simultaneously *not* take up any space. An object that has width *must* add to the width of the room in which it lies. But Chazal tell us it didn't. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 17:33:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:33:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." It has been noted that if the problem occurs because the dough is not or cannot be thoroughly kneaded, then flour would be on the inside as well. Reading the words of the ShA HaR leaves no room for any doubt - he was definitely not concerned about flour INSIDE the Matza, ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza. This is what he writes, "In truth there is no Halachic problem with Gebrochts, nevertheless those who are strict deserve a blessing. This stringency is not without reason and one who observes it is not acting in a bizarre manner but is in fact concerned to avoid a Torah prohibition [brings a number of authorities] since the flour may not have been thoroughly baked" [because flour that is baked is denatured and cannot ever become Chamets] "As can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded. Even though the flour INSIDE the Matza is a much more serious problem because it has been protected from the heat of the oven, AND IN OUR CASE THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION ...... " So - back to the Q - is this factually correct? It is clear that the ShAHa is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? and that if so, it is not baked and thereby denatured? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:35:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512153522.GD9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:42:50AM +0000, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic... Because we use logic to understand things. The chisaron is in "understand" not the possibility being discussed. Lemashal, Quantum Logic is very different than the logic we use to think with, and yet, it's still a logic with its own rules. Can you understand how electron X is spin-up or spin-down, and X is spin-left could be true, while the statement electron X is either spin-up and spin-left, or X is spin-down and spin-left might not? And yet, the difference is experimentally provable. Saying that Hashem can violate logic inherently means that some of His Actions are among the non-understandable things about Him. ... : An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic... Nu, so you agree with the Rambam. That "a round triangle" is a nonsense phrase, not describing something that can or cannot be done. Modern studies into logic, which has reveals that there is no one true logical system, have made me more skeptical. OTOH, if Hashem can defy logic, how would we ever be able to use logic to argue the point? Any proof of the position I attributed to the Ramchal and Zev attributes to Chassidus would require ruling out an adherance to logic rather than pro-atively arguing for its defiance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:22:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512152203.GC9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 06:31:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Under the current rules, Yom : Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time.... : While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted : from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which : is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the : Knesset or from the rabanim? The CR's office, in order to reduce chillul Shabbos. IIRC, for a while after the rule change, the RCA advised observing on 5 Iyyar in chu"l anyway, as American O observances wouldn't pose that kind of chilul Shabbos risk. They since changed policy. I suggested that someone may make peace with the fact by noting that having a country where the legal holidays are moved around in order to minimize chillul Shabbos is much of what one is saying Hallel for. But as one blogger put it... When you sit down to learn daf beis, you make a birkhas haTorah but not a siyum. There is what to celebrate in the existence of such a country, but the fact that they need to worry about chilul Shabbos by the masses shows Yom haAtzma'ut is a "birhas haTorah", not a siyum. Or as Rav Dovid Lifshitz put it... There is much to celebrate about YhA. But beyond atzma'ut, the nation needs to find the etzem. The job is only half-done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:08:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:08:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99d163da-fad0-a04f-8f8f-a9be47a769e7@starways.net> On 5/12/2016 1:31 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > > > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > > observances is likely to have a problem with it. > > She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know > how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, > Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a > quick glance at Wikipedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing > shows that in > the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) > > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has > resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) > on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the > change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? I don't know. I suspect the rabbanut, because they were the ones who established the holiday in the first place, but I don't know for certain. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:06:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:06:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah >> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile << -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: <19882.2235ddad.44661f9f@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) in Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 53 >> i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. << >>>> What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. But I will take the occasion to draw your attention to what I have written in the past about Yom Hashoah. This is from Cross-Currents, 2005. (I don't recommend wading through all the comments there though.) http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/05/06/yom-hashoah/ And in 2006, in the comments section to a post by Shira Schmidt [http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/05/04/the-controversy-over-holocaust-falle n-soldiers-terror-victims-memorials/], I wrote this about Yom Atzmaut: --quoting myself-- My mother has cousins ? an elderly couple, not religious ? who lost their only son in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Every year on Yom Hazikaron they cry anew, but they find the abrupt transition to Yom Atzmaut too jarring and cannot find it in themselves to celebrate. The Israeli government tried to set up a neat historical lesson that would take a few weeks each year and go in an orderly progression: 1. Galus Jews go like sheep to the slaughter ? Yom Hashoah 2. In Israel a new Jew is created, the proud Israeli soldier, who is brave and strong. He doesn?t die a helpless victim, he dies a hero, defending his homeland ? Yom Hazikaron 3. All the evil and sorrow of our past is now redeemed with the glorious new day, a proud and strong new young country, the State of Israel ? Yom haAtzmaut. Of course this simple story line has become darkened and more complex with the passage of time. Israel is no longer strong and new and young but weary and battle-scarred. Nowadays Yom Hashoah is commemorated with far more respect for the survivors than was the case in the early days, far more sorrow and far less arrogance and false pride. The Israeli Army is still looked at with pride but more young Israelis try to get out of serving ? a favorite ploy is to feign mental illness. The brave soldiers so lionized in the past are instead looked at today simply as sons and brothers. There is less glory and pride and more sorrow and grief, for all the young lives lost. Nevertheless, of all the institutions of the modern Israeli state, the army is the one most deserving of our respect and gratitude ? in my opinion. Finally, Yom Atzmaut is not looked at, either, the way it was in the past. If you read Yoram Hazony?s book *The Jewish State* ? or look at the soul-searching in the Mizrachi camp after the Gaza withdrawal ? you see that on both ends of the political spectrum, a weariness and wariness have set in, as the State has not lived up to expectations. The Left is in a post-Zionist phase where patriotism and flag-waving are passe and the alleged mistreatment of the Arabs overshadows all else. The Right has seen its messianic expectations dashed and realizes that the State is not yet the Redemption. My mother?s cousins who can?t find it in their hearts to celebrate Yom Atzmaut are not the only ones. Israel needs to rewrite its storyline. -- end of quote -- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 14:57:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:57:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:06pm RnTK wrote: : From: Eli Turkel via Avodah :> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. :> In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the :> Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi :> explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are :> redeemed at the end of the exile : Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. Nor on Chanukah? Besides, what R' Yochananan mishum R' Shim'on ben Yehotzadaq actually says there on that pasuq is that "laylah she'ein mequdash lachag, ein ta'un hallel". Which would also exclude Chanukah. >From context, I would say the gemara is asking why the existence of a holiday qorban in particular is not sufficient to justify Hallel on Pesach Sheini. So RY says, because the night is not muqdash to the qorban hachag. As for Rashi, he is commenting on the quoted pasuq. "The song will be for you -- on the day that you will be redeemed from the galus." "Like in the night which will be santified chag -- like the way you are acustomed to sing on the night which is sanctified chag. And you do not have a nightof chag to demand shirah except the nights of Pesachim, on their eating." Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 12:48:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:48:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512194844.GE9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:31AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The ShA HaRav writes : "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their : surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly : kneaded ...." Mimah-nafshakh the AR is speaing about it being a big enough risk to justify a minhag lehachmir, but not to the level of an issur. The AR writes "Be'emes, ki gam she'eino isur gamur bubarur midina, m"m hamachmir tavo alav berakhah." If it was normal for flour to be present on matzos, it would be a risk one would not be allowed to take. And if it was easy to see, no risk would be legitimate -- efshar levareir! We need to understand his empirical claims accordingly. Not a statement about something blatant that someone would notice without even a formal survey. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 19:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57351578.1080609@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 05:57 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which > Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel > for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before > establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. I'm pretty sure this does exclude any other night-time hallel. That, after all, is the gemara's point in quoting the pasuk in the first place -- to show that there is only one night on which hallel is said, and therefore it is not said on Pesach Sheni. I also don't see the implication that the future holiday's hallel will be said at night. All the pasuk seems to be saying is that there will be a new yomtov on which you will say hallel, as you do on the night that is sanctified for a chag. Yeshayahu is merely citing an example of an occasion when hallel is said, and could easily have cited a different one instead, but he would have had to be more specific, since there are many days on which hallel is said, and many on which it is not. By citing Pesach night as his example, he can get away with saying, essentially, "like on hallel night", which is not ambiguous because there is only one. From this the gemara learns that there is no hallel on Pesach Sheni. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:25:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:25:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is worse Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/search/?s=yom+haatzmaut&sort=1 1. the issue of date changing of YH is dealt with in rabbi grunstein's lecture 2. the issue of saying hallel at all , that some provocatively dismiss outright, is dealt with by rabbi zylberman, appropriately in his talk at the Aguda of Passaic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 23:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 06:20:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt Message-ID: While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day from the end of the British mandate to avoid chillul shabbat so yom haazmaut was always arranged to avoid chillul shabbat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 07:24:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May I presently buy Israeli carrots after the recent Shmita year? Message-ID: <1463149425226.74416@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. Israeli carrots currently being sold in the U.S. (May 2016) at this point can be assumed to no longer be peiros shevi'is and may be purchased lichatchila. In fact, purchasing Israeli products is commendable as it benefits the Israeli economy. However, if the carrots do not have a reliable kosher certification, one must separate the relevant tithes (Terumos and Ma'aseros). This year is the first year of the shemita cycle. This means that ma'aser sheini must be separated. The ma'aser sheini portion can be redeemed by transferring its kedusha (elevated status) to a coin. Even a nickel may be used, provided the ma'aser sheini portion (approximately 9% of the package of carrots) is worth more than a peruta, approximately 3 or 4 cents. For the procedure to separate Terumah and Maaser, see https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/separating-terumah-and-maaser/. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 08:52:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:52:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) 2 questions. 1. What is the heter to free the kids? (it's a torah prohibition to free them) 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha and kids thru her (eved ivri) He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:07:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:07:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] on a role for a 'secular' Israel Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/856920/rabbi-moshe-taragin/secular-zionism-for-religious-jews/#.VzVBhX-h6_c.mailto Very good explanation to MTA boys on how to look at the zionist enterprise and how to view it in the scope haskala, brit sinai vs moriah , kiddush hashem etc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:44:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:44:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: >>>What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. ----some people need to ask themselves why asking a halachic question provokes them. maybe the 'slyness' was pointing out that an issur can only be perceived as assur by those who believe said action is assur , not by those who feel act in question is muttar/mitzvah. clearly i couldn't ask why people who commemorate those two days don't realize that it's actually assur.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:18:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:18:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> Message-ID: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> On 05/13/2016 11:52 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer > who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce > children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular > Jews) > > 2 questions. > > 1. What is the heter to free the kids? > (it's a torah prohibition to free them) It's also prohibited to have relations with a shifcha, but Chazal permitted a mamzer to do so for this purpose. > 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he > did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them > (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? > parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos > 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha > and kids thru her (eved ivri) > He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship > with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) Why do you say that? On the contrary, "veyatz'ah ishto imo" means his wife goes in with him, i.e. lives with him at his owner's expense. And *only* a married eved ivri is allowed a shifcha. The simple and expected case is that he loves and gets along with *both* of his wives, and wants to stay with both. > The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Again, because she is his wife and they are his children. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:24:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:39 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted > from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which > is not the actual anniversary. > Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day... RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out on. That the Rabbanut moved that day forward or backward to avoid Chilul Shabbos was not significant. The day that Israel was declared a state is the day to say Hallel (and not to say Tachnun). One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:44:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:44:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160513184458.GC10043@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 06:24:08PM +0000, Harry Maryles wrote: : RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out : on... Although RAS was niftar before the telecom explosion that caused much of the RCA to shift position. As RGS recently wrote about R/Dr Aaron Levine of Flatbush : In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:54:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:54:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> Message-ID: <063701d1ad48$d0e0f7b0$72a2e710$@com> RZS writes ...How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? You are claiming a tremendous chidush l'halacha - that these are actually his kids. Do you have anyone who says this? It w appear not, bc they are not mityaches acharav (as a proof - we see that they are avodim, and not mamzers) mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 04:46:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 07:46:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> The justification for the shiur of a geris for kesmamim on clothing is that any spot that is a kegeris or less in area could be from a crushed parasite. So the kesem proves nothing. Also (Niddah 58b) points out that they couldn't make a gezeirah that would mean she would never be tahor leba'alah. I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? For comparison: Tosafos (58b, "ukidvarav") say that if she were infested with many ma'akhalos, one could be toleh even a larger kesem on that. We do not hold like Tosafos. The AhS (YD 190:18) pins that on these bugs being loners. They don't scamper in pairs. Multiple crushed lice would make multiple kesamim. Alternatively (se'if 27, in the name of the Rosh se'if 6) lo pelug chakhamim. Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. (A ma'akholes is apparently too common or too unnoticable to warrant needing to know if there was one around.) And the AhS (se'if 31) says that because pishpeshin can't be found where he lives, this din doesn't apply. This is based on Rashi ("R"N") saying "there are places where pishpeshin are found, and in those places..." Would people living in modern settings have to say the same about the ma'akholes? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:19:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:19:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which > case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, > pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've > unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than > lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the > ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. The bedbugs that I had seen in both the US and Israel are significantly larger than lice, and when filled with blood, hold a lot more. Furthermore, bed bugs have a very distinct odor (at least when there is a significant infestation) that many people can smell. -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:32:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 08:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57386C6F.6070906@sero.name> > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a > place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, > that this is a likely alternative explanation. Bedbugs are back, and can strike anywhere, and the first indication of their presence, long before one actually sees them, is the kesamim they leave behind. I wonder if "maacholes" actually means bedbug, but even if it doesn't the same principle applies. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 07:12:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:12:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live > in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice > and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. > > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah > didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and > therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came > from? I've always figured on the second of these two. My reasoning is based on the halachos of where the kesem was found. If we are going to make logical estimates "about where the kesem came from", then we shouldn't care about whether or not the cloth can be mekabel tumah. Who cares about the size of the cloth, or the color of the cloth, or the material of the cloth? But the system was set up such that if the cloth is not m'kabel tumah, then the kesem can't be tamay either. And so too for the size of the kesem. I had a lot of trouble understanding - and even accepting - the above, but when I realized that without hargasha everything becomes d'rabanan, it began to make sense. (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche to set it up however they wanted.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:25:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:25:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mazer Message-ID: <> There is a major discussion if one has a child who is a mamzer whether he has fulfilled the mtzvah of pru u-revu or not. Similarly is there a mitzva for a mamazer to marry a mamzerut to have children (see minchat chinuch, har tzvi, kovetz shiurim) BTW I saw an opinion that if a mamzer marries a shifcha and has a child he doesn't fulfil; pru u-revi but he does fulfill le-shevet yezarah see a discussion by RAL on pru urevu vs leshevet yetzirah (Hebrew) http://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D6%B6%D7%91%D6%B6%D7%AA-%D7%90 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:43:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Mordechai Cohen asked: <<< The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) >>> My understanding is that if a Jew has relations with a non-Jewess and the resulting children convert to Judaism, he DOES fulfill p'ru uv'vu through them. (Maybe that's only in the case of a non-Jewush man who converts together with his children? I'm not sure.) <<< He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha ... The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? >>> No, it's not the *posuk* who refers to the shifcha and children that way. The posuk is merely quoting the man. It is the man who referred to them that way, and given his love for them, I'd expect nothing less. One might argue that he wrong for feeling that love and/or for expressing it, but that's irrelevant: He does feel that way, and he did verbalize it, and the Torah is merely quoting him. My second answer is more technical. Hebrew has no word for wife. His words could just as easily be translated as "I love my woman", which I presume you'll concede to be accurate. As far as "my children", well, he just wasn't being very clear. He didn't mean "my halachic children", but merely "my genetic children". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:43:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 01:43:44 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? Message-ID: It seems R Micha has erred by not recognising that the risk is NOT about whether there is flour, of course there is flour - as the SAHaR says 'behold we see with our own eyes' that there is flour on the Matza the risk is whether the flour that is certainly there on many Matzos - has been toasted adequately to be denatured and prevented from becoming Chamets when exposed to water. Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57389966.5020706@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 10:12 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts > in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha > d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it > is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only > works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche > to set it up however they wanted.) This is not true. Mid'oraisa tzuras hapesach works in a reshus horabim de'oraisa. That one can't fix a r"hr simply by putting up four poles and four strings is mid'rabanan. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 11:45:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> From: M Cohen via Avodah R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) Mordechai cohen >>>>> There is no "shifcha" today. But a mamzer can marry a non-Jewish woman and have children with her, and later those children can convert to Judaism. I'm not saying he is halachically allowed to marry a non-Jewish woman but the fact is, if he does so, his children will not be mamzerim. Similarly a kohen who is a challal can avoid having children who are challalim by having children with a non-Jewish woman, and later they can convert and be kosher Jews. True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be cha llalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid the consequences of sin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 16:59:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:59:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 02:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such > eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was > tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid > the consequences of sin. That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no reason not to encourage him to do it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 01:32:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:32:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: On 5/16/2016 2:59 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one > we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually > forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no > reason not to encourage him to do it. Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 02:58:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 05:58:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516095809.GA31988@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:43:44AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the : facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour : is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. ... only because you're asking about the problem being prevalent enough for gebrochts to be assur. Whereas I am arguing that by context, we know the SAhR's "harbei" means prevalent enough to be worth a chumerah. And that kind of frequency would require a broad survey. Not sure if that qualifies as efshar levareir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 04:57:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:57:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten bam) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 06:18:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> R' Micha - thanks for the m"makom - still have to look it up. RMB also asked - Are you asking why a man might want to have children other than his chiyuv to do so? Ans. I am aware that a man can (and might want to) raise children not his own. Ie adoption. My question was that R Tarfon seems to imply that his eitza is more than just adopting and raising children not his own. I didn't (and still don't) understand why his eitza is better - they are not mityaches to him in any way. RZS's answer is not true. BTW, thanks to Reb Google, see article on this subject (though it does not extensively deal w/ my questions) [Posted as part of the thread or -micha] Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 10:41:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't > think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah Kamoha) seems to disagree. On 05/16/2016 07:57 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: >> "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not >> yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" > The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children > are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The > Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with > the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks > nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten > bam) The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) But the proof that your children by a nochris are nochrim like her is from the pasuk that says they are not your children. That pasuk doesn't *say* that they're nochrim, but the gemara deduces that since they have no Jewish parent what else could they be? The pasuk itself is not concerned with their status, since the avera it says they'll do is avoda zara, which is forbidden also to nochrim, and thus if they were your children this would be a matter of concern to you. (Your obligation of chinuch would surely apply to your non-Jewish children, if it were possible for you to have any; you wouldn't have to teach them not to eat treif or break shabbos, but surely you would have to teach them not to serve avoda zara, and thus it should upset you that their mother will teach them to serve it.) By saying that this is not something you should be upset about, the pasuk is telling you that they are not your children, and thus their idolatry and subsequent damnation is none of your business. On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > RZS answer is not true. And your proof is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 22:14:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: On Monday, May 16, 2016, Zev Sero wrote: > On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't >> think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. > Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar > Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. > The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt > http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah > Kamoha) seems to disagree. You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being your children. I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they are your children or not. Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 13:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <5bc7f3.13131e6f.446b89a5@aol.com> > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone.[--old TK] AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben ben1456 at zahav.net.il >>>>> But I think the son of a challal is a challal, and his son, and his son, forever. And the daughter of a challal cannot marry a kohen. So his granddaughter (son of his son), his great-granddaughter and so on, can never marry kohanim -- at least until so many generations have passed that no one remembers the family are challalim. Whereas if he has a son with a non-Jewish woman that son is not a challal. He's also not a Jew, but he can become one. And the daughter of a ger can marry a kohen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:13:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 23:13:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben On 5/15/2016 8:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:34:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:34:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A20C2.2050400@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 03:14 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. > The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with > their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, > and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's > property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to > exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, > but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that > of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) > > You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being > your children. Neither the pasuk nor the gemara says anything about their yichus. All it discusses is their status. The Pasuk says they belong to their mother's owner, therefore the gemara says they are avadim. There's no chain of logic involved here; the gemara is merely restating the pasuk. That is very unlike the gemara's next case, where the pasuk doesn't directly address the children in question at all, and its indirect statement is that they are not yours, from which the gemara infers that they must be nochrim. > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. > Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as > a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. 1) Who says a Jew can't be related to a non-Jew? The gemara's order of logic is *not* "they're nochrim, therefore they're not your children", but rather "they're not your children, therefore they're nochrim". 2) Avadim *are* Jews, so who says they can't be related to Jews? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:31:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 05:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from > other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:57:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516215742.GC21112@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:27:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: : shabasos limnucha : moadim l'simcha : chagim uzmanim l'sason : : I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are... : My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, : because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are : Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they : the same in regards to Sason? Apparently they are different aspects of the same thing. As in, "Chag haMatzos haZeh, zeman Cheiruseinu." There is a duality between zeman va'eis, as in a beris being be'ito uvizmano. Quoting what I wrote in v15n74: > ... RAKotler has a beautiful vort on the > difference. Beqitzur to the point of omitting the beauty: eis = a > point in the time sequence of a process. (RSRH would probably relate > "eis" to "ad".) Be'ito, when the baby is ready. Zeman = a point in > time according to a scedule. In this case, the morning of day 8 (or > day 9 when a safeiq Shabbos situation arises). I wrote a vort for MmD > on eis, zeman, qeitz, yamim, shanim, and Jewish time in general at > . In that vertl, I suegges that a qeitz is where the zeman and eis for the end coincide. Thus, "miqeitz shenasayim yamim" is when the predetermined number of years in jail were up AND when Yoseif was developmentally ready. Shanim and yamim. Circular time and linear time. A chag is a point in circular time, /ch-v-g/ related to /`-v-g/ to draw a circle. It's a sacred eis. But every chag coincides with a sacred zeman. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 23rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination Fax: (270) 514-1507 stifle others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 15:02:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:02:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516220214.GD21112@aishdas.org> I feil to see the problem. Nosein ta'am and bitul beshishim go hand-in-hand. RMF yses this argument in a letter to R' Pinechas Teitz to explain why whiskey can be made in sherry casks; since stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6, there is no problem of ta'am. You would obviously tased a mixture of 6 parts water to one part wine. Since qitniyos are batel berov, why would there be reason to say that a pot can becomes "peasdik"? (To quote a subject line from a month ago.) Are we afraid that the volume of the walls of the pot exceed the volume the pot holds? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 22:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:35:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> Message-ID: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No issur involved. 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? On 5/16/2016 11:31 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters > are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim > like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:34:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be :> declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? : Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one : can't accept it in many other cases A little more complicated, since discussing chumeros in mamzeirus raises an issue distinct to mamzeirus. "Kivan denitme'ah, nitme'ah" is a gezeiras hakasuv which makdes resolving mamzeirus in many cases beyond chumerah -- altogether needless. Being born of a father other than the husband does not make these people mamzeirim altogether. More than that, the gemara (Qiddushin 71a) continues telling you one SHOULD NOT reveal the families in which mamzeirus is nitme'ah. It is therefore consistent to refuse DNA testing for mamzeirus (in these cases), while believing that DNA testing is in principle halachically valid evidence. Part of a general reluctance to gather eviudence. However, I would think we could use DNA testing to help a shetuqi or asufi, to free him for the shadow of mamzeirus or at least allow him to marry vadai mamzeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 08:04:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:04:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517150411.GD8481@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 05:54:21PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote: : Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. : While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of : yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? Exactly. Better to use a DNA test to make a shetuqi or asufi either kosher yichus or a vadai mamzer than leaving him a shetuqi or asifu. So I assume in such cases, we should use the DNA test; either result is better than none. (And it's not a kivan shenitme'ah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 09:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 5/17/2016 8:35 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No > issur involved. But then their sons are challalim. > 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to > marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a > convert or divorcee)? Zona, with a zayin. I know one couple who, when they went to get married, were told by their rabbi that she was a virgin. That he didn't want to hear about what she'd done or not done. Granted, she wasn't marrying a kohen, but I guess there's a chazaka. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 12:54:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:54:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:06:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Areivim wrote: : Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people whose values contradict : the Torah is not a hillul hashem.... : As RZS has often said here, kiddush hashem does not mean "good PR" And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul hasheim because CH *does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive Peloni. Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. The gemara literally defines qiddush hasheim has good PR. To tweak that first quoted sentence: Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people because they hold values that contradict the Torah is not a chillul hasheim. That isn't you pushing them away from avodas Hashem, it's them a natural downward spiral. However, lowering that estaeem among people whose values contradict the Torah's for other reasons is NOT "sheyehei sheim shamayim mis'aheiv al yadekha." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:30:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > Peloni. Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a *kiddush* haShem. > Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct value system. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:24:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:24:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> Message-ID: <573B7DFB.1050504@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > Btw, thanks to reb google, see article on this subject (though it does not > extensively deal w my questions) > > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf Very thorough, but I see one enormous flaw -- the author takes it for granted that slavery is barred by dina demalchusa. This may be true in some countries, e.g. the UK, where the common law has held for centuries that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in, and thus that any slave who sets foot in England automatically becomes free. But it remains to be established that this is the case in all countries, particularly in the USA, where the 13th amendment only bans *involuntary* servitude. I am unaware of any law in the USA that would prevent a person from voluntarily becoming the property of another, and after _Lawrence_ and _Obergefell_ such laws, if they exist, may even be unconstitutional! If so, then the shifcha method could work here. There may well also be other countries where this is the case. And in Israel it might be possible to introduce legislation in the Knesset to explicitly legalise voluntary avdus, with appropriate safeguards to prevent it being abused. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:51:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 00:51:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't > include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we > make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the severity of the laws of taharot. He says that even though that reason no longer applies in our current circumstances, we can't nullify the gezerah of ketamim altogether. But we certainly don't need to extend it beyond the specifications of the original gezerah. So a ketem smaller than a k'gris does not make a woman niddah, even nowadays when such a stain cannot plausibly be attributed to a ma'akolet. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:47:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. : : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. Where does it say that? And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah by how clean some TC's frock is? : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation is not limited to those peers. : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive : >Peloni. : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a : *kiddush* haShem. ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off to Tzeduqim? Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. : : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct : value system. You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such limitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517220836.GA31726@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51:47AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. : Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the : reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the : severity of the laws of taharot... So the CS holds that kegeris is the limit of the gezeirah, and not just part of the general "you can be toleh kesamim on anything plausible". Pishpishin and the shiur of a keturmos (the size of a bean called a "lupine"?) *is* considered part of that general rule. To the extent that the Rambam doesn't give it special mention. Which brings me to the next question... How does the CS know that kegeris and blaming a ma'akholes is different in kind than the rest of the sugya? We could deduce from the Rambam, but that just shifts my question up some centuries. For example, the Yereim says that the shiur is based on the lice of your region, and not the same kegeris (about a nickle) of chazal. Of course (given the above), the CS does say the shiur is a geris, not tied to the size of engourged lice. And does that mean that the Yereim (and the mi'ut of contemporary posqim who hold like him) would say there is no shiur today? BTW, the PT, #12 says besheim the Raavad that there is no shiur if the kesem is black, since a ma'akheles stain would always be rad. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 05:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. > : > : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > > Where does it say that? It's completely obvious, and doesn't need saying. It simply can't be otherwise. > And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah > by how clean some TC's frock is? Apparently so. Otherwise what guide do you have? Why do you assume pagans esteem cleanliness, when for every one that does so there's probably another who esteems filth and despises cleanliness? > : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, > > : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > > The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation > is not limited to those peers. But non-peers may well think highly of him for it. Think of the "game" community that has formed online in the last 20 years, and what sort of traits they admire and despise in a person. A reputation that would embarass a t"ch's peers would be lionised in those circles. > : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > : >Peloni. > > : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and > : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a > : *kiddush* haShem. > > ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off > to Tzeduqim? Then it's a good bet that it's a kiddush haShem. > Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my > capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. Actually the gemara's lashon is may *his* Lord forgive him. But it's obviously being said by people who know what Hashem's standards are. > : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. > : > : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct > : value system. > > You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such > limitation. It *has* to have it, because we have voluminous *evidence* of what KH/CH is, and it's emphatically *not* that sheim shomayim should be beloved by those "who call bad good and good bad, who establish darkness as light and light as darkness, bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:57:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> Who is the audience to chilul hasheim in Yesodei haTorah 5:11? "Haberios". Ad sheyimtz'u HAKOL meqlsin oso, ve'ohavim oso, umis'avim lema'asav. Harei zeh qideish as hasheim... "Hakol" is all who? Not all the berios, since that's all he (repeatedly) describes as the observers? -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:35:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:35:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish Message-ID: A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels that there is no health problem can eat the two together -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:32:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:32:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: <> RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea of shifcha today is ridiculous -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:28:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:28:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 05:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:28:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735391/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/eating-fish-and-meat-together/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 04:10:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573C4DA9.9060307@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 05:28 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they >> are your children or not. > > Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> > > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Of course marriage is an occasion when one is *interested* in yichus, just as one is interested in health, character, and all kinds of other things; would you say that "health refers to marrriage, and might have nothing to do with topics like strength, diet, medical treatment, or life expectancy"?! -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 07:27:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:27:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> RBW asked.. L'maaseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a zona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? Ans. Yes, all BT girls are asked 'as discreetly as possible' if they are mutar to a cohen or not when in the shidduch parsha. (bc rov are not eligible) L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must look towards FFB shidduchim This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they bring it up otherwise) Some stats: The average age Americans lose their virginities is 17.1 for both men and women The CDC also reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females aged 20 to 24. That number drops below 5 percent aged 25 to 29 Statistically, if you didn't have sex in your teen years, you're in the minority. The interesting/disturbing problem is that many (rov?) BT cohens are not probably not cohens. (and actually w be mutar to a zona, mutar l'tamai l'masim, etc) If the BT cohens mother grew up post 1960s/70s/80s or so (and became BT post high school), it's probably a chazakah that she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. It's unlikely that the BT boy is willing to ask his mother if she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. (and even if she says she wasn't, is she be believed against the chazaka?) I personally heard from a major chareidi posek that for this reason a cohen s l'chatchila not go out w a BT cohens daughter, if the parents were married before they became frum and she was a teenager post 1960s/70s/80s or so (bc of the possibility that she is actually the daughter of a chalalah who was forbidden to marry her father) As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 09:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:28pm IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they :> are your children or not. : :> Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. : : Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage... I assume you mean: Yichus refers to a persons lineage WRT whom they and their descendents may marry. Do I understand correctly? : It might have nothing to do : with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between : parents and child. Is there a source for making such a chiluq, or are you just posing a hava amina for discusion. I was told lehalkhah ulemasseh that an adoptive child's honoring his parents is a qiyum of kavod harav, not kibud av va'eim. So for KAvA, some kind of genetic parentage is involved. At 12:32pm IDT, RET continued (on a second aspect of the discussion): : RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea : of shifcha today is ridiculous I would like to have the grapevine confirmed on this one. But in any case... When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and shevuyim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:02:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> Message-ID: <573CA023.104@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 10:27 AM, M Cohen wrote: > L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must > look towards FFB shidduchim > > This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. > > At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they > bring it up otherwise) But what about chalalos? An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married. Who keeps track of that, let alone after several generations? > As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens > are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Not just BTs, as I pointed out above. And indeed many poskim do say that this is why our cohanim only duchen on yomtov; since they have no yichus, and can't know whether they're really entitled to duchen, they should avoid doing so except when it would be blatantly obvious, and would thus cause a pegam on their family. (This is a based on a gemara that a safek cohen would collect terumah only once a year, to keep up his name.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573CA023.104@sero.name> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> <573CA023.104@sero.name> Message-ID: <0dcd01d1b128$28a623c0$79f26b40$@com> RZS wrote ..An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married.. Ans. But these FFB girls DO have a chezkas kashrus. My point was that todays female BTs, and male BTs descended from cohanim don't have that chazaka anymore Mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:01:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:01:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:35:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on : yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not : eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels : that there is no health problem can eat the two together In terms of acharonim, it's the Yad Efraim (#116) CS (shu"t #101) prohibiting and the MA (OC 173) permitting. The MA says nishtanah hateva. The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which we don't eat anymore. 2- The Rambam omits it as he does any other piece of medical advice that doesn't work. According to R' Avraham b haRambam, nishtanah hateva means the scientific theory has changed. WHch would make this idea a paralel to the MA's reasoning. The YE lists numerous posqim who prohibit, appealing to authority rather than giving a sevara But I think there is more to the story than included in this report. It's non-trivial to tell people -- especially Ashkenazim -- to follow the Rambam against both the SA (including the Rama) and commonly accepted practice. I am not questioning the conclusion, I just think we are missing critical pieces of the argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573CA7CB.5070500@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 12:51 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and > shevuyim? That's discussed at length in the article that was forwarded. Basically since avdus is a matter of dinei momonos it would seem to depend on dina demalchusa. But my question is on the metzius in the USA; I question the assumption that voluntary slavery is illegal here. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 11:36:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:36:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> References: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> <573BA37C.9070402@sero.name> <20160518174122.GE6953@aishdas.org> <573CAB65.1060509@sero.name> <2e7c1df5b9ef9931f5bc64b483eaeff8@aishdas.org> <573CAD8E.2030905@sero.name> <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160518183641.GA3694@aishdas.org> Two more examples of qiddush hasheim being about behavior in front of anyone. 1- Geneivas aku"m through circumvention is a lack of qiddush hasheim (R' Aqiva, BQ 113a) 2- Orechos Tzadiqim, sha'ar haEmes, calls getting the nations to say "Berikh E-lohehon diYhuda'i!" to be a qidush hasheim. The example is from Shimon ben Shetach requiring his talmidim to return a gem to a Yishmaeli when it was lifnim mishuras hadin. (TY BM 2:5, vilna 8a) (Recall this is pre-Islam, the Yishmaeli was aku"m.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 01:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:26:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or even leaves the family. One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive family and biology contributes nothing. Though not the topic of the shiur if the mother is a shifcha or a nonJew the father (who stays with the family) is entitled to all rights of a father including kibud Av independent of any halachot of yichus. He is not worse than an adoptive parent (my conclusion not discussed in the shiur) The only exception to this rule is sitting shiva. One is required to sit shiva for the biological father and may sit shiva for the adoptive father. When questioned he explained that not sitting shiva for a father even if he did nothing for the family might hint of mamzerut -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 21:32:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Adar Jacob via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:32:58 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 02:59:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 05:59:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160519095946.GD26914@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Adar Jacob wrote: : As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting : it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov : for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. This isn't an issue of rov. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that kivan shenitma, nitma -- a family in which the mamzeirus got forgotten must be left that way. One is *prohibited* against digging up lost claims of mamzeirus. I think of it in similar terms to how an afflicted person isn't a metzorah until the kohein says so. Here too, the biological parentage is the primary factor in determining mamzeirus, but apparently not the only one. We must also be aware of that parentage. And if hot, the person isn't halachically a mamzer and we wrong him by finding out his biological state and making him subject to the strictures. It is only a foundling (asufi) or someone who can't identify who his father is (shetuqi) who are *derabbanan* held under doubt. (De'oraisa, only a definite mamzer is assur.) Not cases of needing to dig up history of people who think they're kosher. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 26th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking Fax: (270) 514-1507 control just a way of abandoning one's self? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:15:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:15:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573DA051.10607@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 01:01 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including > > 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which > we don't eat anymore. Or perhaps we (i.e. middle Europeans) *do* eat this species but the Rambam (in Egypt) didn't and was unaware of it. I know the two Aris have identified it as a species that exists only in the Euphrates, and thus is eaten only in Turkey and Iraq, but that's not information the CS could have had. It could just as easily have been a species that also lives in the Danube, but not in the Nile or the Mediterranean. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:12:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:12:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Death Message-ID: <1463667145403.74543@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Vayikra 21:5 They shall not make a bald spot on their head, nor shall they shaveoff the corners of their beard and they shall not make a wound in their flesh. Heathenism, both ancient and modern, tends to associate religion with death. The kingdom of God begins only where man ends. Death and dying are the main manifestations of divinity. For, in the heathen view, the deity is a god of death, not of life; a god who kills and never revives, who sends death and its harbingers - sickness and poverty - so that men, mindful of his power and their own helplessness, should fear him. For this reason heathen temples stand beside graves, and the foremost place of heathen priests is beside a corpse. There, where the eyes are dimmed and the heart is broken, they find fertile soil for the dissemination of their religion. He who bears on his flesh a mark of death - a symbol of death's power to conquer all - and thus remains ever mindful of death, performs the religious act par excellence, and this especially befits a priest and his office. Not so are the priests in Judaism, because not so is the Jewish concept of God and not so is the Jewish religion. God, Who instructs the Kohein regarding his position in Israel, is a God of life. The most exalted manifestation of God is not in the power of death, which crushes strength and life. Rather, God reveals Himself in the liberating and vitalizing power of life, which elevates man to free will and eternal life. Judaism teaches us not how to die but how to live, so that even in life we may overcome death, an unfree existence, enslavement to physical things, and moral weakness. Judaism teaches us how to live every moment of earthly life as a moment of eternal life in the service of God; how thus to live every moment of a life marked by moral freedom, a life of thought and will, creativity and achievement, and also pleasure. This is the teaching to which God has dedicated His Sanctuary and for whose service He has consecrated the Kohanim, who teach the people the "basis and direction of life" __________________________________________________________________ Based on this may one conclude that the present day obsession with death that one finds in some Islamic circles is a reversion to heathenism? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:54:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:54:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In continuation of the topic of kibud av ve-em from yevamot 22b that there is ni issur to curse a wicked father rambam hilchot mamrim explains that this applies only the punishment the Tur disagrees and says that one must honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva others distinguish and say that one must honor a wicked father only while he is alive see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva R Zilberstein brings the Zecher Shlomo (Lech Lecha) and the Chida (Devash Le-phi 1:39) that therefore Avraham owed no honor to his father Terach once Terach handed him over to Nimrod. R Zilberstein further brought the Maharam Shick that one who is involved (metapel) in a mitzvah is the owner of the mitzvah and whoever works and establishes a mitzvah is the one to make the arrangements. Thus the one who actively rears the child is the "owner" of the child and gets to make the decisions and not the biological parent who is not around. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573DA738.2000201@sero.name> On 05/19/2016 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation > of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or > even leaves the family. > One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's > marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. > R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has > absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the > adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em > applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that > abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive > family and biology contributes nothing. Sorry, this is contrary to halacha. Kibbud av va'em is not connected to hakarat hatov; it's a duty that one owes to ones parents *regardless* of whether they did one good or bad. Even a mamzer owes his parents kibud, although they did him the worst evil. Even Avraham Avinu, whose father handed him over to be burned, owed him kibbud av. An adoptive "parent" is only owed hakarat hatov (and kevod rabbo if he taught him torah) and therefore is only owed it if he actually did good and not bad. An abusive adoptive parent is owed nothing. This is not subject to any machlokes, thus there is no room for different opinions. Someone who says otherwise is simply wrong. I found an answer to my speculation that a Jew's child by a shifcha might be considered his child. It's not so. An eved has no yichus at all, not even to his mother(!) let alone his father. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 06:37:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:37:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to > do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections > between parents and child RZS: > What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? > Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Yichus may of course have different meanings in different contexts. The first mishna in the fourth perek of Kiddushin, Asara Yuchasin, very strongly connects yichus to marriage. The mishna lists ten halachic categories of personal status (my translation of "yichus") , and then immediately details the connection of these statuses to the permissibility of marriage Indeed it is clear that according to this mishna, a *very fundamental implication* of yichus is whom can one marry halachically, Putting this more strongly it seems that the mishna is defining ten halachic "marriageability" categories (yuchasin), making marriageability a *defining characteristic* of yichus. This is most likely what RET had in mind. In the framework of this mishna, RZS' statement "What does yichus have to do with marriage?Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less." is untenable.Yichus defines whom you can marry. When the gemara states "bno min min hashifcha umin hanachrit u eino mityaches acharav" it is saying, as we know, that halachically the child of a male Jew and a female slave or a non-Jewish woman is not his child; there is no genealogical connection ("yichus") between them. This is the sense of yichus that RZS apparently favors, but is a meaning of yichus very different from that in the above cited mishna. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 03:02:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:02:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I am bringing in more detail the story told by R Zilberstein. He gives out notes before the shiur and so this is all in print if anyone is interested A man divorced his wife after a nasty settlement without leaving any mezonot for the wife or their daughter. Later the woman married again and had a new happy family and the new husband raised the daughter from the first marriage supplying all her needs while the biological father had no contact with his daughter A few days before the daughter's marriage the father shows up holding an invitation upset that the adoptive father is listed as the father of the kallah and the biological father isn't mentioned at all. He screamed is the husband of your mother really your father? Though he had no contact with his daughter he described the shame he had with his friends and demanded that they print a new invitation with himself listed as the father of the bride The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father of the bride. Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to have his name listed on the invitation. The daughter returned to her father with the psak of R Zilberstein and the father remarked that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also needs to participate in buying an apartment. R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the biological father is listed. He was not sure whether the language should be "be abuha" or "be nasa" . The first would be a lie since she didn't live with her father but the second language is used only for an orphaned bride. His preferred remedy was to leave that phrase out completely. Again anyone who wants to see the Hebrew original can contact me -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:12:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:12:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573F3781.9080405@sero.name> On 05/20/2016 06:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that > the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. In other words, her obligation of kibud av va'em is to her real father, not to the one who raised her, but this obligation doesn't include putting him on her wedding invitation, for the reason explained later. > Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her > up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the > dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father > of the bride. I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by the father, but not in this case). > Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to > have his name listed on the invitation. [...] the father remarked > that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter > returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz > they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also > needs to participate in buying an apartment. Again, the term "to be considered the father" makes no sense here; can money make someone a father or not a father?! If he's not the father how can any amount suddenly make him one, and why are they haggling over the amount? Rather the issue here was not at all whether he's the father. Of course he is. The issue here was who is the host who is making the wedding and inviting people to it. And that is the person who is paying, not just for the actual affair, but also the expenses that enable the affair to happen, i.e. the apartment, without which there would be no shidduch. It appears from this psak that if he is willing to pay this the bride and her adoptive father may not refuse! And that would be because he is after all the father, and thus has the *right* to host his daughter's wedding, if only he is willing to do so. > R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological > father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the > biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but > when he is alive the biological father is listed. I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! And the fact is that she is forbidden to his relatives, and *permitted* to her adoptive father's relatives. (In fact it used to be common for someone who raised an orphan to arrange a marrriage for him or her with one of his own children. I even know of a case nowadays where this happened.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:18:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:18:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Surely prevention of marriage with (forbidden) relatives is applicable whether the biological father is or is not alive? On 20 May 2016 at 11:02, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in > order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not > alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the > biological father is listed. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 13:00:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:00:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: see http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ and especially http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful for this is also greater. also http://www.lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] The children may be identified when called to the Torah and in formal documents as the son or daughter of those who raised them, and the normal restrictions of *yihud* (which generally allows unsupervised and close contact with only biological parents, siblings and children) is not applicable to adoptive families, whose members interact as a biological family would. This is far more than transporting halakhic forms (like not addressing one?s adoptive parents by their first names) to the adoptive family. It is an expression of a new halakhic reality, so to speak. obviously laws of mourning are different between a biological parent and an adoptive parent Rabbi Soloveitchik insisted that there is a *kiyyum* of the mitzvah of *avelut* even when there is no halakhic obligation to mourn the specific individual. He drew this conclusion from the ruling that ?Where there is a case of a deceased who has left no mourners to be com?forted, ten worthy men should assemble at his placeall seven days of the mourning period and the rest of the people should gather about them [to comfort them]. And if the ten cannot stay on a regular basis, others from the community may replace them.? It was for this reason that the Rav regularly advised children to mourn the adopted parents who had raised them. If there was no * hiyyuv *[obligation]* ha-mitzvah*, there was none-the-less a *kiyyum ha-mitzvah*. BTW a friend of mine told me that there is a psak of R Schacter that if the parent abused the child and it would be a great stress on the child to mourn for the parent then he is exempt from sitting shiva -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 11:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:20:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I found an extended article on how to fix a mazer (tihur mamzerim) from avnei hamakom volume 15 from Rav Oren Zwick As to marrying a shifcha he nrings that minchat yotzchak outlawed it because of dina demalchuta Rab Breish (Chelkat Yaakov) - in a series of letters between them disagrees. In fact it is suggested that in Israel marriage is conducted by the rabbinate and halachically they should be able to allow a shifcha. It is stressed that this is on condition that it be done officially-legally by the Israeli rabbinate. He also discusses other options and ends with a reference to Yevamot 68b and bet shmuel 2:18 in the name os sefer charedim that a mamzer can't live more than 12 months > I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the > original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is > inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by > the father, but not in this case). I am confused. I emphatically stated that anyone who wants to see the original to contact me and I would send it. Why suspect what is written when one can check it yourself The words that R Zilberstein uses are harei she - "avi hakallah" bnidan didan hu ha-abba ha-choreg Obviously the adoptive father is not the "real" father is considered like the real father and is the one who should be listed as the father in the invitation > I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the > father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! Be-kewtuba raui lichtov et shemo shel ha-av ha-amiti hedei she-lo tezei taut u-machshla be-nisue krovim. Umnam be-yetoma kotvim et shemo shel mi she-gidel otah aval ke=she-ha-abba chai yesh lichtov et shemo I again strongly suggest that anyone who wants to challenge my interepation of the psak look at the original and not guess based on his knowledge what 2 major poskim state. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 21:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] ============================================== My general take on this topic is that many halakhists bent over backwards to find solutions to the adoption problems mentioned (e.g. yichud). Perhaps it was due to the need for orphans to find homes or the human drive for childless couples to have families(especially when dealing with non-Jewish adoptions)? I never found much written about the meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times influenced the decisions. 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 Sun May 22 16:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 19:12:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah Message-ID: Pesachim 35a tells us that ?things which can come to chimutz, a person can fulfill his chiyuv of matza with them; this excludes those which come not to chimutz, but to sirchon.? This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: > Lo sochal alav chametz > Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos > Do not eat chametz with it > For seven days you will eat matzos Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. After all, if the pasuk had said, "Do not eat carrots; you must eat beef," would that lead us to conclude that carrots and beef have similar definitions? However, the truth is that the phrases don't *need* to save any logical connection. If Torah Sheb'al Peh says that this is how Torah Sheb'ksav chose to connect the definitions of chametz and matzah, it's just one of many similar cases. (I don't know whether this particular limud is called a "hekesh" or something else, but I hope my point is clear.) So I am not saying that the gemara was wrong for deriving these definitions from that pasuk. What I *AM* asking is why the gemara points to that pasuk, when there is a different pasuk it could have used instead. In my view, there is another pasuk that makes the very same point, but much more clearly, in a very pshat way. Why should we resort to a lomdishe juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: > Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos > Ki lo chametz > Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah > They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza > Because it did not become chametz > Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. How much clearer can it be, presuming that the Author wants a historical narrative, and not a legal text? If the word "ki - because" was missing, my argument would be much weaker, but it is *not* missing, and it is the cornerstone of my argument: It became matza *because* it did not become chametz. Chametz and matza are one and the same, differing only in that one is baked prior to chimutz (which prevents chimutz from happening), and the other does undergo chimutz. If dough does reach chimutz, getting baked later is irrelevant. Baking is relevant only to preventing chimutz, which is what creates matza: "They baked it into matza, because it did not become chametz." But I can't find anyone who explicitly connects Shemos 12:39 to the definitions of chametz and matza. Even if there is some weakness to this pasuk, and Devarim 16:3 is truly stronger, I would think that this would be mentioned in the gemara. Pesachim 35a should have said something like, "And R' Ploni retorted, Why do you cite Devarim, when we already have Shemos? But R' Almoni answers that Shemos is actually weaker because of..." Does anyone know of anything like this? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 00:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend 11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in techiyat hamettim. What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:40:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby Message-ID: The Gemara in Kiddushin (73b) has the following case. 4 women give birth to baby boys in the same house and one is the wife of a Cohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin, and one the wife of a mamzer. The Gemara states that the midwife is believed to say which is the son of the Cohen, which is the son of the Levi, etc. The Ran quoted by the Beis Yosef (Even Haezer Siman 4) states that this is a takana d'rabbanon that min hatorah the midwife is not believed (because it is a davar sheberva which requires 2 kosher witnesses). This brings up the some obvious questions: 1. What did they do before this takana? It is clear that men were not around during childbirth so how was there any yichus? 2. When was this takana made? 3. How could the Torah have such an impractical approach to these matters? There Torah was given to human beings to observe and for thousands of years women gave birth with no men present. 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:56:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: By coincidence a recent daf yomi (kiddushin 72b) discusses the future status of mamzerim. The following is a non-literal translation of an article by R Avihud Shwartz from yeshivat har etzion. Anyone who wishes to see the Hebrew can request me to forward the original. This is not a continuation of the previous discussion. The gemara says that R Yose says that in the future (le-atid le-vo) mamzerim and netinim will be tahor while R Meir disagrees. The gemara followed by Rif and Rosh pasken like R Yose. Tosafot asks why the need for a psak on events that will only occur le-atid le-vo. The Rosh answers that the gemara is talking about a safek mamzer. But even R Yose agree that cannot solve the problem of a certain mamzer. R Yose is teaching that there is no need to distance from safek rmamzers today since even in the future they will not be revealed. Hence, R Yose is teaching a practical halacha for today. The Rashba says the gemara does occasionally pasken on future questions and so takes the gemara literally. He is then left with the question how can the prohibition against marrying a mamzer disappear le-atid lavoh. The Rashba has an amazing answer. In the generation before the Eliyahu the rabbis will allow mamzerim as an emergency measure (horaat shaah) but when the Moshiach comes they will be pasul. So according to the Rashba at the time of the geulah there will be a one time heter allowing known mamzerim. To explain this Rashba R Shwartz that a condition for the geulah is the achdut of the nation. Mamazerut introduces a separation among Jews. Therefore for one generation the nation will have a complete achdut between families. During the "regel" all Jews are chaverim (Chahiga 27) . One explanation is that that during the holiday everyone is assumed to keep the rules of taharah. However another explanation is that during the holiday everyone is consider a chaver as part of achdut of the people. R Yose sees mamzerut as a type of Tumah and as the Moshiach comes close this tumah will be removed. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:19:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:19:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524091930.GB15539@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) : that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. ... : What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down : bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, : chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large : percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" : halacha. Well, since you already are reading this midrashically, how about... Someone who doesn't bow at modim isn't being used literally, but as a description of a kind of ingrate. Mouths the words of thank you, but isn't moved by them. And perhaps the point being made by the Zohar is that kifui tovah can be the first step, the point at which a soul goes off course and ends up -- after a downward spiral through worse offenses -- not being revivable at techiyas hameisim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:34:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:00:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see : http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ : and especially : http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 : In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even : greater... The thing is, though, the conversation before this one, which I am presuming motivated this post, was in particular about kibud av va'eim. Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. : children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises : him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful : for this is also greater. Off topic: When prospective fathers call me asking for advice about adoption, one of my first pieces of advice is that you can only do it right if you're being as selfish about it as any other man looking to become a father. If you are doing it because you can look at the child and see in their behavior and personallity some continuation of yourself into the future, fine. But a child needs parents to grow into a healthy adult, not baalei chessed. And I'm not sure if teaching a child this line of reasoning is healthy. It gets in the way of viewing themselves as part of the family's shalsheles. On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 04:10:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I never found much written about the : meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times : influenced the decisions. I think part of the problem is that much of this has to be done subconsciously. The conditions of the times change the metzi'us about which the poseiq rules. And also the poseiq has to try his best to come up with an answer based on the Torah rather than zeitgeist, but no human being's best will ever fully exclude the mood of their era. So the second people start discussing how the times impact pesaq, the discussion itself will change the answer -- and in ways that add rigidity to halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 03:14:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:14:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> References: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. > But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos > of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? I am answering for R Zilberstein so take my words with a grain of salt. First the thrust of the shiur was on the rights of the adopted parents and not on the mitzva of kibud av ve-em. He thus stressed that the adoptive parents have a right to all decisions (apitropus) on the child and not the genetic parents. In particular they make all the decisions concerning education etc including the wedding. As part of the argument he mentioned the zecher shlomo (and chida) that Avraham owed no kibud to Terach once he handed him over to Nimrod. Thus kibud av disappered (pakah) once Terach abandonded Avraham. Since it was not the topic of the shiur he did not discuss if the mitzvah to honor the adoptive parent was mi-deoraitam derabban or something else. I brought from Rav Melamed that it is "only" because of hakarat hatov but he stressed In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children Of course if the adoptive parents are abusive there is certainly no requirement of kibud or hakarat hatov. > Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there > still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein > that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. >> I again refer to YD 240:18 where the Ramah states that there is no mitzva of kibud av ve-am when the parent is a rasha. I also explicitly brought from R Zilberstein that the halachot of mourning are different and that one is required to sit shiva and say kaddish for a parent who is a rasha including one who abandonded the child and presumably an abusive parent. I also brought from Rav Schachter (second hand) that if sitting shiva for an abusive parent would present psychological problems than the child is not required to sit shiva. I would personally explain RHS that strong psychological pain can be pikuach nefesh and overrides shiva and kaddish which are only derabbanan > I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to > the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would > treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. again look at YD 240:18 with Shach, Taz, Pitchei Teshuva etc -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:31:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:31:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies > are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? > I don't think there is any issue here: babies are issued identity bracelets literally seconds after they are born, long before they leave the delivery room. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:40:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57444BBF.209@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:37 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting > down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than > murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar > large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a > "minor" halacha. I don't know how minor this is. Think about it; we're not talking about someone who never comes to shul, and never hears Modim in the first place. What kind of person comes to shul, hears Modim and knows what it is, and yet doesn't bow? Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion of politics real estate er, the Daf. Yes, definitely the Daf. Even if you're deep in, er, the sugya, so long as you're aware that the chazan is saying Modim, you bow. The kind of person who comes to shul and *doesn't* bow at Modim must have some kind of agenda, like the fellow who says "Modim Modim", or "Al Kan Tzipor...", and thus is a pretty serious sinner. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 06:46:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:46:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: <politics real estate er, the Daf. >> The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Looking at it again Tosafot (appears on 16b) asks the same question that I mentioned that all Jews have a share in the world to come. Nevetheless as I mentioned Kaf HaChaim brings a Zohar that one does lose one share in the world to come for not bowing at modin. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 09:46 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back >> bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion >> of politics real estate er, the Daf. > The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim > in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking > about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:38:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: <> I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 13:47:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:47:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744BDCB.7010207@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:38 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. Not to adopting, but to pretending that the child is not adopted, which was the fashion in the early and middle 20th century. By the '70s this fad had mostly passed, and it became accepted that adopted children need to know the truth from the beginning. > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. > see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 See the last piece, at the end of page 2, by R Eliezerov, which explains the confusion that some people have. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:02:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:02:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> Message-ID: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at > modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:05:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:05:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> Message-ID: <5744C20F.1030206@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 05:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at >> modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. That is clearly not whom the gemara or the zohar means. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 20:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 03:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years >his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years >and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara >literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) > >I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) >that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. >First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in >techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend >11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in >techiyat hamettim. Interesting. Is the Kaf haChaim, and the Zohar, interpreting the gemara in?Bava Kamma 16a? http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41181&st=&pgnum=106 https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%90_%D7%98%D7%96_%D7%91 That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, allegorically, to mean?that those people won't be resurrected? Kol Tuv,Josh Waxman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 03:14:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:14:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: As you know, the question of whether a Bar Mitsva boy continues counting Sefira is the topic of much discussion and Bar Mitzva derashot. Sefardi Poskim tend to assur, Ashkenazi tend to be lenient. But one of the major arguments in favor of a BAR mitsva boy continuing to count is that before Bar Mitzvah he was rabbinically obligated (mi-derabanan) because of Hinnukh. I was recently asked about what to advise a BAT Mitsva girl who has been carefully counting every night - under the same conditions. It would seem that in contradistinction to a minor male, there is no obligation of hinnukh on minor females to count sefira. Indeed, a parent has no obligation of hinnukh on mitsvot that will not be obligatory when the child becomes an adult. Hence, a parent need not train his daughter in mitsvot aseh she-haZeman gramman. See R. Yehoshua Neuwirth, The Halachoth of Educating Children, Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1999) Dinim Kelaliyyim, parag. 2, p. 2; R. Barukh Rakovsky, ha-Katan ve-Hilkhotav, I, ch. 2, no. 7. So I think that - even according to the lenient Ashkenazic sources - it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. But she should definitely continue counting (without a Berakha) because counting is the ikkar mitsva - not the berakha. If someone has sources or solid grounds to be meikeil - I'd be happy and thankful to hear them. Kol Tuv Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 06:48:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:48:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?_May_a_Chassan_May_a_Chassan_who_is_get?= =?windows-1252?q?ting_married_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omerwho_is_getting_mar?= =?windows-1252?q?ried_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omer_shave_earlier_in_the_day?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_on_the_32nd_of_the_Omer=2C_before_shekiah=3F?= Message-ID: <1464184133111.74887@stevens.edu> >From OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a Chassan who is getting married the night of Lag B?Omer shave earlier in the day, on the 32nd of the Omer, before shekiah? What is the halacha concerning relatives and other guests attending the wedding? A. The prevalent custom is that one may get married on the night of Lag B?Omer. The halacha in general regarding shaving is to wait until after sunrise on the morning of Lag B?Omer. Rav Belsky zt?l ruled that the chassan and the fathers of the chassan and kallah may shave on the 32nd day of the Omer before shekiah. Other family members and guests should not shave before shekiah. Rav Belsky zt?l did permit them to bring a shaver to the wedding and shave there after shekiah. (See ???? ????, Volume One, pages 109 ? 110) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 10:24:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:24:17 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] expulsions Message-ID: why could not the Dannites leave the megadef in their midst, what would have been so terrible? it was brought in the name of the Alter of Kelm that you see from here how important to remove bad influence from their midst [and Dan were not considered the cream of the crop]. this may be a source for those that disagree with the tack that removing students from an educational mossad should not be done easily , as pikuach nefesh. the nefesh in question according to the Alter would be the rest of the institution..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 08:44:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:44:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?May_I_listen_to_slow_music_during_sefir?= =?windows-1252?q?as_ha=92omer=3F?= Message-ID: <1464277506499.46892@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May I listen to slow music during sefiras ha?omer? A. Music should not be listened to during sefira whether it is fast or slow, even though slow music is less prone to stimulate one to dance. Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim I:166) questions whether one may listen to music for enjoyment throughout the year, and concludes that although throughout the year there are lenient opinions, but during the period of sefira one must be strict. If one was in a state of moodiness or discontent, Rav Belsky zt?l was of the opinion that even during sefira he may lift his spirits with slow music, provided he does not listen excessively. (See ???? ????, Volume One, p. 106) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 11:32:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:32:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. >> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Yichud%20Prohibition%20-%20Part%201.htm The article does bring other poskim including the LR who were strict. Rav Jachter's conclusion is: Obviously, anyone to whom this issue is relevant should consult his Rav for a ruling. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 14:42:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:42:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160526214223.GA15628@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The : gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: :> Lo sochal alav chametz :> Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos :> Do not eat chametz with it :> For seven days you will eat matzos : Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. But this is derashah, not sevara. : .... Why should we resort to a lomdishe : juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for : us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: :> Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos :> Ki lo chametz :> Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah :> They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza :> Because it did not become chametz :> Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay : Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become : chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* : become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. Except that this is a historical statement, descriptive, not prescritive. Their wheat dough was matzah because it happened not to become chameitz -- for reasons the pasuq wants us to notice. Teshu'as H' keheref ayin. And peshat is a pasuq in chumash like in all of Tanakh is more concerned with Mussar than halakhah. It's not a halakhah book at the expense of being a Mussar book. As they say about ayin tachas ayin, peshat is values, derashah exists to provide the halakhah givien the mapping of those values to a limited reality and limited humans. But does that "ki" mean that the lack of becoming chameitz is a defining feature? Maybe a lack of sirchon would also be good lehalakhah, but didn't come up. (Given how much more available wheat was in Egypt.) "Ki" could refer to sufficient cause, you are assuming the pasuq means necessary cause. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 33rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total Fax: (270) 514-1507 submission to truth, and what results? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 19:23:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:23:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> On 05/26/2016 02:32 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah > > There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. > Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's > forbidden, and that's that. >> > > Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 04:13:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:13:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:21:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Asher Weiss Re: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Despite what I wrote two hours ago, I was just notified by my Brother Dov that he discussed the issue with Rav Asher Weiss Shlita last night at his Thursday night Shiur in Har Nof Jerusalem. Rav Asher holds that as long as there is continuity, the girl can continue counting with a berakha after her bat Mitsva. Yiyasher Kochacha and Shabbat Shalom Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il ________________________________ From: Aryeh Frimer Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:13 PM To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 08:44:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:44:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim Message-ID: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Off line conversation that I'm belatedly moving to Avodah: I asked: Starting at 21:6 (then 21:8, and etc etc.) the phrase "lechem Elokim" is used a number of times. Onkelos translates lechem as korban each time -- which is exactly what one would guess. While my Hebrew isn't great, I couldn't find a single mention of this in my Mikraos G'dolos (just about every mention of that pasuk talks about the first part of the pasuk, about forcing a Kohen to give a get). Perhaps it's just so obvious that lechem means korban here, that it's literally unremarkable. But, still, the use of the word "lechem" seems odd to me. It's as if the Torah is going out of its way to make things sound _more_ anthropomorphic, more primitive, than it needs to. (Granted -- now that I think about it, the phrase "rayach nichoach" also seems gratuitously anthropomorphic -- but: (a) there is some commentary on that phrase; and (b) perhaps we hear "rayach nichoach" so often we're just used to it.) Does anybody have any thoughts on why the Torah, after using the words "korban" or "olah" this entire Sefer, suddenly switches to "lechem" in this perek? R Seth Mandel answered: : From a linguistic point of view, I do not consider the usage remarkable. : This is the House of HQBH, and the qorbanot are His Daily Portion. : The use of the word lechem to describe "portion/allotment" I consider : a perfectly normal, if poetic, term. R MIcha Berger responded: ... It would be interesting to confirm this... Does anyone associate Vayiqra 21 with qorbanos that are forced by the calendar, to the exclusion of chatas, asham, todah, etc...? Does qedushas kohanim have more to do with such qorbanos than others? (And if so, does this relate to which qorbanos were allowed on bamos back in the days of bamos?) Anyone else have any thoughts? (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this significant at all?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 09:11:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:11:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim In-Reply-To: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: <574871A5.80303@sero.name> On 05/27/2016 11:44 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with > "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this > significant at all?) We say twice a day "Vaydaber YKVK ... es korboni *lachmi* le'ishai, rei'ach nichochi". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 11:52:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160527185244.GB24209@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:48:27AM +0000, Joshua Waxman via Avodah wrote: : That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is : located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, : allegorically, to mean that those people won't be resurrected? Teaser for my post But the name of the city was "Luz" originally by micha ? [15 Kislev '765] - Fri, Dec 16, 2005 And he [Ya'aqov] called the name of that place Beis-el, but the name of the city was Luz originally. - Bereishis 28:19 Luz, the original name for Beis-el, is apparently the name of a kind of tree, usually translated "chestnut". It's one of the kinds of wood from which Ya'aqov avinu made sticks for the sheep and goats to look at... Bereishis Rabba (69:8) discusses the amazing properties of living in the city of Luz: * They always told the truth. * No one in the city died. When people got old and tired, they needed to move out for nature to take its course. * The city was never conquered by Sancheirev, and wasn't destroyed by Nevuchadnetzar at the end of the first commonwealth... Luz is also the name of a special bone in the body, where the skull and spine meet. Two medrashim associate the luz bone with Hadrian y"sh.... Luz seems particularly connected with Yaiaqov, the one who renames it. First, his service of G-d centers around emes, truth, the middah exemplified by the citizens of Luz. He uses the luz sticks... ... The mishnah says "derekh eretz qodmah laTorah -- proper behavior in society is a prerequisite to Torah." Our aggaditos and midrashim seem to converge on underscoring that point. Luz is the city of truth, it has the permanence of truth both territorially and in the lifespans of its inhabitants. And it's truth, the personality trait about which Yaiaqov centers his service of Hashem, which determines techiyas hameisim. All of these medrashim refer to Luz, to the trait. When referring to applying the pursuit of truth to Torah study or worshipping Hashem, then we progress from Luz to Beis-el. The stick shows the influence of environment... The bone luz is situated just where the mind connects to the body. It is therefore, in a very real sense, "beis keil", G-d's "home" in this world. Ya'aqov builds a circle of stones in which to sleep at this spot, which -- as R' Hirsch notes ad loc -- is the first home of Israel. He gets a vision of a ladder between heaven and earth, an externalized luz bone between mind and body. Once one has the foundation of "Luz", one has the proper personality and attitude to provide some solidity in time and in social context. Then one is capable of building that derekh eretz into Torah, making their soul a house of G-d. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 34th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 and maintain a stable relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 29 05:36:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 08:36:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> References: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160529123638.GB24648@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:23:15PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>> There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. :>> Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's :>> forbidden, and that's that. :> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. : No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you : were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. OTOH, given the size of the observant American community loyal to RMF's pesaqim, anything he says can't simply be dismissed as "rare" either. RYBS was meiqil as well. And, FWIW, was R' Zvi Flaum, a talmid of R' Dovid Lifshitz's - now RY of Shaarei Tzion, oour LOR back when we adopted and the question first arose. I am also curious... RMMS pasqened? Didn't he generally delegate that role to others, leaving himself as head mashpia / moreh derekh, rather than moreh hora'ah? Did this somehow become an emotionally charged machloqes, like eruv for some reason tends to? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 36th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in Fax: (270) 514-1507 being a stable and reliable partner? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 05:25:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:25:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: R. Aryeh Frimer posits that a girl who becomes Bat Mizva during sefira should not continue counting with a bracha after becoming bat mitzva, since, unlike a boy, she had no mitzva to count as a minor because of chinuch. I find this very counterintuitive; on the contrary, it seems to me that a girl has more reason to continue counting with a bracha than a boy. A boy upon becoming bar-mitzva during sefira goes from a status of non-chiyuv (obligation) to chiyuv; one may question whether what he counted in a state of non-chiyuv "counts" when he enters a state of chiyuv. On this point, some poskim say that there was a chiyuv all along, at least rabbinically, so no fundamental change took place; some disagree. A girl, on the other hand, has no chiyuv either before or after her bar mitzva; in this respect, nothing changed at all when she became bat mitzva. Thus, if the girl has been making a bracha on sefira throughout the sefira period, in keeping with Ashkenazi practice, it seems to me that she should continue to make a bracha on sefira after becoming bat mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:42:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:42:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas Message-ID: my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 08:34:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:34:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parshah Dual Dichotomy 5776 Message-ID: <1464622469992.18876@stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6863 For many of us in the know, as well as to the surprise of anyone who might be thinking of traveling to or from Eretz Yisrael, say anytime from after Pesach until Shabbos Chazon, right before Tisha B'Av, something is off. I am referring to the weekly parshah, which would not be the same regularly scheduled one in Chutz La'aretz as it is in Eretz Yisrael. Truthfully, this type of dichotomy actually happens not so infrequently, as it essentially occurs whenever the last day of a Yom Tov falls on Shabbos. In Chutz La'aretz where Yom Tov Sheini is halachically mandated,[1] a Yom Tov Krias HaTorah is publicly leined, yet, in Eretz Yisrael (unless by specific Chutznik minyanim[2]) the Krias HaTorah of the next scheduled parshah is read. This puts Eretz Yisrael a parshah ahead until the rest of the world soon 'catches up', by an upcoming potential double-parshah, which each would be read separately in Eretz Yisrael. See the above URL for much more about this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:18:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jack Stroh via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 18:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> References: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Message-ID: <20160531013511.GA21014@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 02:18:52PM -0400, Jack Stroh via Avodah wrote: : Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with : Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the : disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. Back a step... Our current leining schedule post-dates Chazal, the standardization ceoms from the geonim. And originally it was in use in Bavel. In EY, 3 or 3-1/2 year leining systems were more common. So the systme was designed for chu"l; the parshios chu"l shuls aren't doubling up aren't supposed to be doubled. It's Israel that slipped out of proper alignment with geonic intent. So the question really is why doesn't Israel fall back into line and minimize their drift from the original geonic schedule. Well, this year there are no doubled parshios for them to split until Matos-Masei -- just in time to realign Devarim with the 9 days. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 02:17:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:17:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children Message-ID: <> <> I agree with Micha. I again bring a list of prominent poskim who agree with RMF so it certainly is not a solitary opinion. I would strongly argue that in practice most people follow the lenient opinion. The article I previously quoted brought those to disagreed and concluded that one should check it out with his local rabbi. He certainly did not dismiss the lenient opinion. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. Rav Nachum Rabinovitch (the prominent Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivat Hesder of Maaleh Adumim) is cited in Techumin 10:317 by Rav Azariah Berzon as agreeing with the aforementioned Poskim who permit adoptive parents to have Yichud with their adoptive children. Rav Rabinovitch notes that Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:08:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:08:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160531180845.GA12478@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:17:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Rabinovitch notes that : Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. R' Zundel Salant says that it was the zekhus of adopting the children of those who died in makas choshekh that we were redeemed from Mitzrayim. Since we are obligated to remember yetzi'as Mitzrayim, I can't call it "time immemorial", but since our birth as a nation, certainly. >From : Chamushim Hashem brought the nation around, via the path of the desert, the Red Sea; and the Children of Israel arose chamushim (to be defined) from the Land of Egypt. - Shemos 13:8 ... and the Jews enthusiastically departed from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Unqelus (ad loc) ... with good deeds... - Jerusalem Targum (ad loc) ... one in five. -Tanchuma (Warsaw ed. #1), Mechilta ... and the Jews departed with five infants from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Yonasan (ad loc) Rashi defines "chamushim as "armed", which underlies the Targumim of Unqelus and Yerushalmi. Armed in a spiritual sense, prepared with good deeds. Another definition would be from chameish, five, leading to the medrash concluding that only 1/5 of the Jewish were saved from Egypt. Rashi adds that the other 4/5 of the population died in Egypt during the plague of darkness. These were the people who didn't merit redemption; those who believed in the Egyptian paganism and wanted to stay. Deriving chamushim from the number five is also the point of departure for the Targum Yonsan's "departed with five infants." But the medrash on Shemos, describing the Egypt experience, told us that we had six children at a time. How then can the Targum Yonasan here mean that every Jew left with five children, as though this smaller number is something that should impress us? The Be'er Yoseif therefore believes the naive read of the Targum Yonasan is incorrect. Instead, the Be'er Yoseif explains all these targumim in light of each other. The word chamushim was chosen not despite the ambiguity, but because of all its connotations. Four fifths of the Jewish people died rather than being saved. But what about their children? The youth didn't deserve death, even if they agreed with their parents -- as children, they aren't accountable or punishable for their crimes. The Be'er Yoseif explains that this means that each of the 600,000 men left Egypt had to have left with five families of children -- his own, and those of four families left orphaned by this punishment. Far more than the six-at-a-time that were born to them. This is not only the intent of the Targum Yonasan, but also, raising others' children the "good deeds" of the Jerusalem Targum, as well as the "zerizus", the enthusiasm, of the Targum Unqelus. They were prepared and surrounded by the mitzvah of taking in these children in need. Today we think of adoption as something someone does when they r"l can't have children of their own. However, in light of this devar Torah, we see that this mitzvah played a central role in defining us as a people. According to the Be'er Yosef, it is the merit of adopting orphans that rendered us ready for the redemption from Egypt! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 09:15:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ie in ghettoized Europe , the Accursed Wandering Jew was only the killer of the 'saviour'; not much better in Moslem Middle East. In Modern Times, it can't refer to the million chassidim , to whom isolationism is the ideal , not to mention theologies of the value of the gentile. In Litvish models, ideally the Jew should be confined to the beis medrash , and the spouse 'kvoodah pnima'. It is only the lack of Manna that interferes and forces bedieved one out of the ghetto. The OTD Jews of the last 200 yrs who have impacted every walk of life and every class of endeavor in academia , commerce , culture and liberal polity can not have been what chazal had in mind. The Israel model is the most vilified political entity on Earth. If it's only a messianic concept , then it has nothing to do with the Jews , only the Messiah. so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:40:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:40:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? > > SNIP > > so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, > practically. > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or they need work in this area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 03:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:25:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/31/2016 9:40 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in > Yishayahu. It is a real concept. No, it is not. > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? The phrase ohr l'goyim doesn't exist. There are three verses where something similar exists. Isaiah 49:6 says that Hashem has placed us l'ohr goyim. Isaiah 42:6 also says that Hashem placed us l'ohr goyim. And Isaiah 60:3 says that nations will walk in our light. There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us. And it's not for any specific generation, I don't think, but all of them. We are the example. Whenever I hear "ohr l'goyim" it irks me, because it's such a mistake. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> References: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160601165119.GB20066@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:25:31PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The : former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the : nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among : nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us.... This is clearly peshat in Yeshaiah 60:3, "beholkhu goyim le'oreikh..." But "le'or goyim", in 42:6 and 49:6... I would have said something close to the reverse; to me le'or goyim sounds more like an imperative. An or lagoyim is a descriptive construction. Yeshaiah would be saying that we are light for the nations. L'or goyim is more prescriptive, we are "to provide light for nations". Not as a light, but in to be one. And it's up to us to actually illuminate. BTW, according to Rashi (42:6) those goyim are the shevatim, not other nations. And according the Metzudas David, it's a messianic prophecy, not an imperative before-hand. The thing is, we're obligated to serve as a nation of kohanim in the here-and-now regardless of Yeshaiah. So I see this as a discussion of peshat in the pesuqim, with no pragmatic difference to hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 39th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliable person? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:22:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:22:27 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it >> practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. > It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then > show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other > nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or > they need work in this area. my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of humanity in all generations; except possibly recent times, when those clearly NOT living a halachic life are seen by some at least to have been a source of blessing... furthermore, we fast on the day the Bible was translated, so we can't even say that the other Abrahamic religions is the explanation, since they become in a sense Fruit of a poisonous tree, to use the legal analogy From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 02:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:58:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: I am gratified that my understanding that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during the sefira period can continue to count with a bracha was also expressed to RAFrimer by RMH. Unlike RAFrimer, I do not think that this this constitutes a "fundamental misunderstanding" of brachot women make on time-bound mitzvoth, according to the Rema and standard Ashkenazic practice. If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her chiyuv-level not having changed. I am completely unsurprised that Rav Asher Weiss paskened that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during sefira can continue counting with a bracha, based on his understanding of the mitzvah of sefirat haomer, as appears in Minchat Asher Vayikra chapter 51. R. Asher asks a series of questions that indicate that sefirat haomer is different from other mitzvoth which are performed verbally (see there). He then explains as follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting avodat Hashem. Shofar, lulav, matza are examples of the former. Biur chametz and maakeh are examples of the latter. We make brachot on both categories of mitzvot, but there are differences between them. Sefirat Haomer is a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the mitzvah itself; the avodaat Hashem of sfirat haomer is knowing the count every day, not saying the words themselves. Saying the words is the action by which the desired result is achieved (unlike other verbal mitzvoth like kriyat shma and hallel in which saying the words themselves is avodat Hashem). R. Asher explained elsewhere that mitzvot in which the tozaa is the mitzvah do not require kavana , which is why someone who answers the question "what's the count tonight?" without intending to perform the mitzvah of sefira is nevertheless considered to have performed the mitzvah. In sefira, when a day is counted, when the result of the counting has been achieved (the person knows, by counting, what day it is), the mitzvah has been done. My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) , even if strictly he is not obligated; when he becomes a gadol, he is considered not to have missed any days, and can continue to count with a bracha. As Rav Asher explicitly paskened, this applies to a k'tana as well. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 04:36:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:36:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25c18a21-7bfc-78f4-f9a0-30ba738263a7@zahav.net.il> To give a metaphor: If the machine generating the light is working improperly, the light could be dangerous and it needs to be sent out for repair. Without getting into the question of how the machine broke down (God directing or us choosing to break it), it is clear that if we aren't doing the job, a tikkun is required Ben On 6/1/2016 6:22 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged > history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of > humanity in all generations; From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 07:33:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:33:30 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>>It shows we or they need work in this area. ---- meila i can understand blaming us . but to blame 'they' , the goyim is saying they refused to hear the gospel..... >>>>>>If the machine generating the light is working improperly ---- or properly working light, just that the potential buyers threw it in garbage I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to listen to our message... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:21:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: I am responding on avodah to some remarks on arevim > So if the health minister happens to be ... anti-vaxx ..., suddenly the > halacha has to turn around?! And after the next election it turns around > again?! Look at what happened in Israel two years ago, when German > was health minister and decided to end fluoridation. Now Litzman is > restarting it. Was everyone supposed to change their minds in those two > years, or accept that the truth changed, just because the government did?! This completely misunderstands the role of government rules. Besides dina de-malchuta we learn that if not for the government we would live in anarchy everyone decides for themselves what is best. Medieval philosophers and commentaries debate why one must listen to the government. Opinions range from divine rights to the king can kick you out to more modern theories that the citizens accept the rule by staying in the country and especially by accepting privileges from the government like the use of roads, army, schools etc. In consonance with the Mishna we listen to the government because without it there is chaos. The government specifies safety laws, traffic laws, tries thieves and murderers, has laws against sexual and drug abuse There is nothing in these theories about the government always being right. Obviously, governments are made from people who make decisions and different countries have different laws some more liberal and some more conservative. However in each country one is required by HALACHA to follow the government regulations (as long as they don't conflict with halacha). If the regulations change over time then yes the observant Jew much change his behavior just as he changes when doctors change their views or when a bet din changes their views. When batei dinim in different locales disagree then each community must follow their local bet din. Pointing out that a different bet din disagrees doesn;t matter one must follow the local bet din. Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. ------------------------- In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Some possibilites that have been offered include 1) There is a mitzvat aseh to listen to the rabbis 2) It is based on logic similar to above, otherwise it leads to chaos He went into a side discussion of the status of sevara (deoraita?) and a Rav Akiva Eiger. 3) The rabbis are smarter than us and so we should listen. RMA points out that there is an intrinsic problem. If the reason is too good then we are back to question that it becomes a deoraita. If it is weak then listening to the rabbis becomes wishy-washy, ie if circumstances change, if one disagrees with their reasoning etc. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 09:49:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603165041.NPMS27913.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> R S Newman has posed the question in a provocatively interesting way. Thanks! Musing out loud, is it possible that the concept applies to Torah/Torah values in addition to its people? For example, doesn't the Rambam offer that Xtianity and Islam, both "offshoots", if you will, of Judaism, have moved the world's population (at least partially, in the case of some part of Xtianity) away from A"Z? As a second data point, R Jonathan Sacks often points out how many of the world's ideas are rooted in Torah (e.g., equality (even the King!) before the law, which, in turn, gave rise to (because it was a necessary pre-condition of) democracy, etc.). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 11:04:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: <133b75.a02d7da.44832097@aol.com> ohr lagoyim when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ....so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. >>>> It began long before Chazal, in the time of Avraham Avinu. (The concept, not the exact words.) And Yitzchak and Yakov. "All the nations of the world will be blessed through you." For the incredible moral and intellectual influence the Jews have had on the rest of the world throughout history, see Thomas Cahill's book, *The Gifts of the Jews* and read Dennis Prager's review of the book in *First Things* which summarizes the book's main points. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/11/002-cahills-gift Hirsch in the introduction to his commentary on Tehillim shows that Dovid Hamelech meant for Sefer Tehillim to be used as a book of prayer by all the nations of the world and indeed, this has come to pass, with Tehillim having been translated into practically every language in the world. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:22:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:22:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:37:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:33:30AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . : so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to : listen to our message... As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those words exist anyway? RBW assumes that it does, and therefore if we are unhappy with the rate of progress, we should asume the light needs fixing, not that its users are neglecting it. But I have no doubt that our influence has had a central role in the progress of civilization. Whether or not we consciously worked at it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 11:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:20:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier For a detailed answer see http://rabbikaganoff.com/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:11:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> References: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57539853.9030809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:22 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the > : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? > > The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? The first 11 chapters of Devarim is a tochacha. But it's not curses, which is what we usually associate with the term. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > words exist anyway? In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; that people will come to EY to do business with Shevet Zevulun, and while they're there they will do some touristing and visit Y'm to see what is to be seen, and be so impressed that they'll accept the 7 mitzvos and bring zivchei tzedek. So there's no missionising, no outreach, just us being ourselves, and those who are already prone to be attracted to the light will be attracted. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 09:04:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:04:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160605160452.GA11606@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:20:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. : The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier : For a detailed answer see : http://rabbikaganoff.com/ With all due respect to RYK, what I said earlier is historically correct: the currently leining system was designed by geonim for Bavel. So chu"l leining for the 8th of Pesach instead of Acharei-Mos was correct scheduling. It is Israel that got ahead. So the major question is why does EY wait until Matos Mas'ei to split a double parashah and fall back into sync with the design? And that's easy -- because all the double parshios before then are already split! If you want to ask why the ge'onim have us splitting all the double parshios, yes, that has to do with timing the tochachah to be 2 Shabbasos before Shavuos. But that's not a why we didn't catch up to EY yet thing -- catching up was never a goal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 05:45:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 08:45:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wrote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? There are multiple r Avigdor miller shiurim where he demonstrates clearly that Jewish ideas have slowly entered the goyishe (western) world thru us. Where Jews did not live, our teachings have yet to have the same effect (far east, Africa, etc) This is also the message of r Aryeh Kaplan in 'If You Were God' http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48970646.html See r ken Spiro's 12 part series world perfect where he demonstrates that this has occurred http://www.aish.com/sem/wp/ Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c learn from us) Its true we spent most of our history just trying to survive, but by osmosis (and more) our ideas and ideals have molded and raised the level of humanity as a whole Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 10:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:09:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> References: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> Message-ID: <57545CC9.3050301@sero.name> On 06/05/2016 08:45 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient > madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be > dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c > learn from us) The gemara says that "Israel was only exiled among the nations so that converts should be added to them". Note the passive form. Even in galus we were not expected to actively recruit gerim, but rather to live among the nations so that those who are naturally attracted to our way of life would be able to find us and avail themselves of an option that they would otherwise never know about. Not even a symbolic hishtadlus is expected of us; we are simply to do our own thing, but in a place where potential gerim will see us. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 12:46:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:46:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those : >words exist anyway? : : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; ... The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an imperative to put in conscious effort as well. My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to avodas Hashem. Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat in "le'or goyim". There is also a possibility that le'or goyim is a messianic prophecy. Like And the same questions could be raised with "Halkhu amim rabim... Ki miTzion teitzei Sorah..." De facto, it will? We must act in a way that causes Torah to be spread from Zion? Now? Le'asid lavo? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 13:00:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:00:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitzva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: In discussing the case of a girl who became bat mitzva in the course of sefira, it is instructive to consider the analysis of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik (the Rov) of the Bahag's opinion on sefirat haomer (see Harrei Kedem Volume II chapter 112). The position of the Bahag is that one who does not count one day of omer does not make a bracha on subsequent days The Rov did not accept the widely-held opinion that the Bahag holds that there is one mitzva to count all 49 days. Rather, each day of sefira is a separate mitzva. However, on each day, there is a "din mesuyam", a particular law that the previous days have been counted. If this is not true, one is counting not sequentially, but with skipping, not the count the Torah specified. Skipping a day invalidates each and every subsequent day, not the totality of the count. As is well known, according to the Bahag, one who forgot to count at night counts during the day without a bracha, but may subsequently count with a bracha. The Rov asked: according to the Bahag, does one fulfill the mitzva of sefira during the day? If so, why doesn't one make a bracha? If not, why may one continue counting subsequent days with a bracha? The Rov held that the Bahag held like Rabbeinu Tam that the mitzva of sefira is only at night, and when one counts during the day he does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all. However, when counting during the day, one does a "maase sefira", an act of counting, even if he does not perform "mitzvat sefira". This maase sefira makes his counting connected, and he can continue counting with a bracha, although there was one day on which he did not perform the mitzva of sefira at all. According to the Bahag, one who forgot to count the 49th night gains nothing by counting the following day, since one does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all during the day. Counting during the day is not in itself a mitzva, but only helps to enable counting subsequent days with a bracha. Even if one were to say that a katan (minor) does not have a chiyyuv (obligation) to count sefira, and a katan that counts has not performed the mitzva of sefira, nevertheless his count is a "maase sefira", an act of counting. In this way the count of a minor is similar to counting during the day; it is a masse sefira which enables one to continue counting with a bracha, even when the katan becomes a gadol. Clearly, this applies to a minor girl exactly as it does to a minor boy. The Rov noted that even if one were to know that he will not be able to count every night until Shavuot, he counts every night with a bracha until he misses, since each night's count is a separate mitzva, and skipping a future night will not invalidate a previous night's mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 23:49:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:49:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 6/5/2016 10:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > : >words exist anyway? > : > : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; > ... > > The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort > and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an > imperative to put in conscious effort as well. > > My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a > statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being > a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? And I think the answer is "no". > So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to > shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim > either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to > avodas Hashem. Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the nations of the world. > Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. > [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, > hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. And again, no chiyuv here. > > Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... > > It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that > is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat > in "le'or goyim". No one is saying it isn't a good thing. But we prioritize, and whether a thing is an obligation or not goes into the calculation of those priorities. This isn't an obligation. To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 19:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 22:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ain machlokess bo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5b76f9d9-80e4-c222-c9e6-881437eb0fb9@gmail.com> In //Dynamics of Dispute/,/ I develop the idea that the Rambam, when he says that there is no //machlokess/ /b'payrush mekubal miSinai/,/ he does not mean that there were no disputes *about* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. He means that there was no disagreeing *against* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. In note 12 (p. 82) I wrote that in addition to indications that this is so from other writings of the Rambam and their applications to talmudic sources, The //Mevo HaTalmud//, attributed to Shmuel HaNaggid, indicates this definition of the word //machlokess// as well. I have just found that the Meiri on Avos 5:19, regarding a different subject, explicitly gives this definition to the word //machlokess//, explicitly negating it in the other sense. He writes: It seems to me that [the use of the word] ''machlokess'' attaches only to the one who responds to the first [speaker]. I.e. ...when a second person responds [to the first] and says, ''What you say is proper to do is improper, or what you taught is wrong,'' this [response] is the ''machlokess.''...the "machlokess" only refers to one of the two sides, the one that responds to the first. Another way to put it: Sometimes the word //machlokess/ /refers to an opposing opinion, not to two or more opposing opinions. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 05:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:56:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> >> No one is saying it isn't a good thing. ..To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. R Avigdor miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 09:22:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:22:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. ------ the only problem i have with their approach is that , had the Jewish people been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies their job was basically done---since a billion xtians then took over , and a billion moslems after that . the direct interaction of jews w goyim in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to have minimal direct impact . where jews have major impact in modern times , in science , entertainment , ,media etc are ways that clearly were not only not what Scripture had in mind, but in many cases directly contravening Tradition.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 04:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:56:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R > Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the > requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo > tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban > becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita > is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 12:49:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:49:09AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to :> shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim :> either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to :> avodas Hashem. : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the : nations of the world. So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a tzivui? :> Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. : Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. (I just noticed this tied to "mamlekhes kohanim" quite smoothly.) We also see from hilkhas geneivas aku"m that chilul hasheim and qiddush hasheim involve whether we ch"v distance aku"m from AYH or merit to draw them closer. So I guess we could add qiddush hasheim and avoiding chilul among the list of potetial imperatives that say le'or goyim in more clearly tzivui terms. Going back to the parshanus of le'or goyim... RET posted on Areivim in 2012 (quoted then by RnCL, with permission at , quoting IE and the Radaq (49:6) that le'or goyim refers to Yeshaiah's nevu'ah 00 the light is the nations seeing that his nevu'ah was fulfilled. And thus not about the Jewish people at all. To which RnCL replied citing the Rashi (as I already wrote, in one place he takes "goyim" to mean shevatim, and thus uplifting other Jews) and then quotes the other Radaq (42:6) and translated: > And so you would be also l'or goyim like it says "And nations shall > walk to/in your light -v'helchu goyim l'orech" [Yeshiyahu 60:3 - where > it is pretty clear that it is the nation Israel being talked about] > and the light is the Torah that shall go out to them from Tzion. And then translating Metzudas David (ad loc): > L'or goyim - to light the eyes of all the nations to know that Hashem > hu haElokim. Closing with her own thesis: > And indeed I think that it is the other pasuk quoted by the Radak, ie > v'helchu goyim l'orech that is the one that is the real source for the > common understanding which is usually labelled as Or l'goyim. That pasuk > is quoted all over the place (unlike l'or goyim), for example in dozens > of places in midrash raba, tanchuma, pesikta d'rav kahana etc And a lot > of the commentary in the various midrashic sources involves analogies > between the shemen zayis that lights the Beis HaMikdash and Yisrael who > lights the world -eg Shemos Raba which goes on to say and so our fathers > were called zayis because they gave light to all with their emunah. > > That is, to my mind, the concept which we understand to be or l'goyim is > unquestionably there in the sources - it is just generally drawn from a > psuk that is much more of a mouthful (Yeshiyahu 60:3). L'Or goyim, does, > it would seem according to all the classic commentators, mean a light to > the nations, as we would understand it, but, at least on one of the two > pasukim where it is used, it is understood as referring to Isaiah himself, > not the Jews in general (but note that it is clearly a good thing, > and high praise of Isaiah, that he should be considered this). And, > as so often seems to be the case (and as discussed with tikun olam) > the phrase which tends to roll off the lips in the common parlance is > not the strictly correct biblical terminology, but the one that sort of > sounds right to the ear of the layperson to get to the concept of which > they are aware. To continue her thought to focus on 60:3, I see BB 75a explains vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as a messianic prophecy, and someting HBH will do, not even hilkhisa demeshichasa. Metzudas David: "As to say, from you they will learn the ways of Hashem and you will light their eyes." Also, not clearly a tzivui. The Tanya 1:36 takes "vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as messianic, and thus not a tzivui for the here-and-now The Malbim takes the pasuq as prophetic and descriptive, linking the seifa, "yeilekhu leneged zarchakha" to "ukhvodo alayikh yra'eh" in the previous pasuq. Okay, given 60:2, we could presume 60:3 isn't imperative either. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:38:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:38:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> References: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> Message-ID: <20160606203815.GB983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:56:44AM -0400, M Cohen wrote: : R Avigdor Miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out : and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own : backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Maybe in theory we should clean up our own backyard first, but... Anyone in kiruv would question whether they are all that separable. My own most inspiring Shabbasos were in NCSY, experiencing it with people for whom it was one of their first few attempts to observe Shabbos. Similarly, anyone who has given a shiur will tell you that the topics they prepared to teach others are those they know best. And even during the shiur -- umitalmidai yoseir mikulam. Maybe if we invested effort being a mamlekhes kohanim, we would be better at avoiding messing up our own backyard too. And for a Hirschain perspective... The Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch by Rabbi Mayer Schiller http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/humanisim_rsrh.pdf Jewish Action (Summer 5759/1981) pp. 21-26. Vol.49, No. 3 On pg 24 (PDF pg 4) he quotes 19 Letters where RSRH talks about a world in which every Jew would be a mutely eloquent example and teacher of universal righteousness and universal love; if thus the dispersed of Israel were to show themselves everywhere on earth as the glorious priests of God and pure humanity... RSRH makes a duty to set an example. Not to actively teachm but not to ignore the example we set either. And then there's the Semag (Asei 74), which I translated for : I already expounded to the exiled from Jerusalem who are in Spain and the other Roman exiles that now that the exile has gone on far too long, it is appropriate for Israel to separate from the vanities of the world and grab onto the signet of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is truth, and not to lie neither to Jew nor to gentile. Not to mislead them in any way. To sanctify themselves even in what is permitted to them, as it says, "The remnant of Israel do not commit sin, do not speak lies, and one won't find a false tongue in their mouths." (Tzefaniah 3:13) And when Hashem comes to save them, the nations will say, "It was done justly, for they are a people of truth and the Torah of truth is in their mouths." But if they act with the gentiles with trickery, they will say, "See what the Holy One, blessed be He did, that chose for His portion thieves and con-men." Also, it says, "I will plant her [the Jewish People] for myself in the land..." (Hosheia 2:25) A person doesn't plant a kur [of seed] but to produce numerous kurim. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, planted Israel among the lands so that converts will join them (Pesachim 87b) and every time that they conduct themselves with trickery, who will attach to them? It seems that unless we act in a way that makes it obvious to non-Jews that our redemption would be just, the Semag expects us to continue to languish here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:39:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> On 06/06/2016 03:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I > : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the > : nations of the world. > > So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > tzivui? 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. 2) What is the origin of This idea you keep pushing, that "mamlechet kohanim" has some connection to outreach to anyone, let alone nochrim? 2a)Since when is that a kohen's job? 2b) Pshat in "kohanim" is princes, as in "uvnei David kohanim" (Rashi) This whole idea is at most, again, a nice drasha for a rov in shul, or for a mussar sefer, but certainly not relevant to halacha. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:43:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:43:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.)" What you suggested is what the Ran says, however, the Ramban explicitly rejects this idea. R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? Therefore, he explains that by dinim d'rabbanan what is not important is the actual mitzva act, but the fact that you listened to the Chachamim and did not rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:51:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I referenced who explains the Ramabam. R' Meir Simcha makes a very different assumption. He assumes that every d'rabbanan is NOT necessarily the ratzon hashem and therefore by d'rabbanans what is important is that you listen to the chachamim and not rebel, the actual action is not as important ayen sham. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 12:42:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:42:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160607194229.GA27374@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:22:53AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : the only problem i have with their approach is that, had the Jewish people : been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies : their job was basically done -- since a billion xtians then took over, : and a billion moslems after that. the direct interaction of jews w goyim : in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to Unless you think our presence had a cultural impact that explains things like why the doctrine of trinity evolved and why they don't go on Crusades anymore. On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a :> tzivui? : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. Targum Yonasan ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be called on to serve. Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. Kehunah is a duty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:22:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> On 6/7/2016 11:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:39:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <575730E4.7050400@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :>So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > :>tzivui? > : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a > : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be > : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; > : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. > Targum Yonasan You mean, of course, "Yonasan", i.e. a version of Targum Yerushalmi that a printer mistakenly attributed to Yonasan. But of course we all know that, I hope. I just expected to see the scare quotes. > ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be > called on to serve. A kohen's shimush is the avodah in the BHMK, not anything else. It's (1) a promise, not a tzivuy or a nevuah; and (2) has nothing to do with "service" to anyone. > Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many > hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against > this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in > inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job > by definition. *If* it's a job, it's a job of avodah BHMK, and the pasuk is promising that if you do as I tell you then I will award you this prestigious job. But Rashi says the *pshat* here is not a job at all, but a status. He has to say that, because al pi pshat non-bechorim were *never* intended to be kohanim meshamshim. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:01:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573627.6060306@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" > as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem > lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". 1. I think you got that backwards. Ve'atem tihyu is the prat, and Eileh had'varim is the klal. 2. I fail to see the point you're deriving from this. How does this make it a tzivuy of any kind? However you read it, it's still a promise, a proposed deal, not a command. > As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. > Kehunah is a duty. Meyuchad is not a duty, it's a status. What one is meyuchad *for* can be a duty, as here (except for the problem that non-bechorim were never intended to do avodah), but the yichud is not a duty. "Mekudeshes" doesn't mean "obligated in the duties of a wife", it's the status of being dedicated to one man, though that status by its nature *comes* with those obligations. And "harei at mekudeshes li" is certainly not a command to do those things that a wife is obligated to do for her husband. It's predicated on an understanding that she *will* do them, but it's not itself any kind of command. But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:40:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 05:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries > : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. > > Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 23:02:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:02:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: The Megilla describes how Ruth sneaks in to where Boaz is sleeping and lies down at his feet and that Boaz woke up in the middle of the night to find her there. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (19b) states that Boaz had a bigger Nisayon with Ruth then Yosef had with Potifer's wife because Ruth was single and tehora (see Rashi there). I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? I would bet that the answer for everyone (male) reading this is no. The thought would not even cross our mind. So why does the Gemara state that this was a tremendous nisayon for Boaz? It's not like there is no yetzer hara for arrayos today, there certainly is, just look around at what is going on in the world around us and even within the frum community. And yet, IMHO the average person would not see the situation described in the Megilla as a nisayon at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:09:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:09:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. Ben On 6/8/2016 8:02 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you > woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) > lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 13:01:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:01:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up Message-ID: in this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work in the long run. i wonder if the claim is true, and if so, how could there be a hetter for such a thing---multiples are riskier than singletons; i can't imagine that a posek could allow that jsut for budgetary reasons... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:23:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:23:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > > Even if that is true, why does that make it a big nisayon for boaz? It's either an issur drabbanan or doraysa for him to sleep with her. Why would he be tempted? He also happened to be an old man. If a woman came up to you and made it clear that she wants to sleep with you would you be tempted? Would that be a tremendous nisayon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:42:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:42:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] samael Message-ID: not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger of doing so? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:26:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:26:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] samael In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589BAA.7090905@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 03:42 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have > never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger > of doing so? One is not supposed to pronounce the name of *any* angel that isn't also a human name. As far as I know this is a universally-accepted rule. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 14:55:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:55:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608215544.GA2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:13:32AM +0000, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: : RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she : wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, : and never will be Chayav... I am wondering if the chiyuv of chinukh to follow minhagim may be more binding than any minhag itself. If she is counting because that's what women in her eidah do, poerhaps her post-bat mitzvah chiyuv is *less*. : To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here : regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman : geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, : Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh : haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a.] a : woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is : a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives : heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant : berakhot... And because "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" is a statement about HQBH commanding the tzibur, so there is no sheqer inan einah metzuvah ve'osah saying "vetzivanu". For that matter, how does making a berakhah on a mitzvah performed for chinukh work? And returning to the case of an edah where women are nohagos to count the omer, an Ashkenaziah would make a berakhah on a minhag too. On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote: : If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a : bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah : (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able : to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her : chiyuv-level not having changed. If in all cases, she is making a berakhah on the tzibur's command, and perhaps the over la'asiyasah is what triggers why say the berakhah now rather than some other time. I think the list of sources RAF provides speak more to what constitutes a trigger for saying the berakhah than what the berakhah is on. And lemaaseh, chinukh, minhag and einah metzuvah ve'osah are each sufficient for Ashkenazios. : ... [R Asher Weis] then explains as : follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action : (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the : result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to : achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting : avodat Hashem... Sounds like a sibling to the Brisker gavra vs cheftzah. Whether the gavra has to do the pe'ulah, or the tzotza'ah must take effect onthew cheftzah ... : My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a : mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the : mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a : maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is : definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan : counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira : (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) ... Yeah, but it's not only the child counting, it's the child's mind which knows the count. Kind of like the non-Jew made the maaqah, but on his own home! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:25:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:25:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the : government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not : knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. Many accuse the AhS of writing things that would to appeal to the govt censor. But not to distort the din, only in cases where he thought the readership would realize he was obviously doing so. Which means that the AhS can't be used as a ra'ayah, because those who disagree will simply say he *obviously* couldn't have meant it. But the idea that communal policy halakhah should follow the NIH (or your country's equivalent) recommendations because the alternative is chaos appears compelling. Assuming the poseiq things the gov't is being honest. : In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael : Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to : listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees : and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita... Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on their audience. Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently includes conflicting laws. : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo sasur cannot apply. Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 : R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to : explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim : d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do : the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that : whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we : keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. : : This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I : referenced who explains the Ramabam.... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 min. in). As is my norm, I add bits here and there. ... But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, neither to the left nor to the right"? 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between Torah and rabbinic law. 2- [My own addition] R' Shimon Shkop allows us to say the same thing, 180deg off. In Shaarei Yosher, he asks the question of why a sefeiq sefeiqah (a doubt added upon a second doubt) is ruled leniently. The Rashba (Shu"t 1:401) holds it's a variant on the notion of relying on majority... Rav Shimon explains sefeiq sefeiqa on other grounds, following the Rambam. Who said that a doubt in Torah law must be ruled stringently? It wasn't the Torah, it is rabbinic! ... So, rather than the Ramban's limiting the specific prohibition to only cases where we are certain about the realia, it's possible that we could limit the rabbinic enactment of ruling stringently on Torah law to have only been made about the other 612 laws. With the same consequent rationale. 3- Rav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (Meshekh Chokhmah, Devarim 17:11): A Torahitic prohibition describes something that is inherently wrong. The universe is made such that combining meat and milk is a problem (metu'af, meshuqatz). A rabbinic prohibition lacks that reality. Chicken and milk isn't inherently damaging, it is that it leads to error through habit or accident. Therefore, one needn't the same care when dealing with rabbinic extension as when dealing with the damaging or refining thing itself. 4- Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Qunterus Divrei Soferim): Of course there is a reality to rabbinic statements. It is all revealed from the Creator, all the Ratzon Hashem yisbarakh (the Will of the Creator, blessed be He). The difference between a derabbanan and a de'oraisa is the explicitness. Therefore it is less sacred, and violation involves lesser realities. A difference of quantity, not quality. Rabbi Rakeffet links Rav Elchanan's position to his belief in da'as Torah; both imply a belief that there is revelation of Hashem's Will today through the rabbis. 5- Shulchan Arukh haRav [another addition not in the lecture]: In a rare case of where the Shulchan Arukh haRav discusses the purpose of a law rather than just codifying practice, he discusses the significance of yom tov sheini shel galiyos, the observance of a second day of Yom Tov outside of Israel. He explains that there is no time in the heavenly realms. The supernal "Pesach" is not associated with any particular time. Hashem made a connection between that Pesach and the 15th of Nissan, giving us a worldly manifestation within time. The SAhR continues that the 16th of Nissan is connected to the very same supernal Pesach. The seder on the 2nd night is a manifestation of the same metaphysical reality. What differs is who draws down the connection, not what it is we are connected to. Perhaps this is generalizable to rabbinic legislation in general. This would result in an opinion similar to Rav Elchanan's in that it gives a reality to rabbinic law, rather than their just being pragmatics for how to keep Torah law. However, the opinions are also quite different in that it makes the rabbinic legislator a metaphysical engineer, building the reality, rather than a conduit of Hashem's revelation of that reality. And, to continue R' Rakeffet's thought, Chassidic attachment to the Tzaddiq is not the same as the Yeshiva World's notion da'as Torah. 6- Seifer Me'iras Einayim (SM"A, Ch"M 67, #2): The berakhah that Hashem gives to those who keep shemittah , that they will have sufficient crops in the 6th year for the 6th, 7th and 8th years, is only when shemittah is mandatory by Torah law. (I.e. when the majority of the tribes are in their lands, and therefore there is a yoveil every 50th year.) Today, someone who keeps rabbinic shemittah gets no such guarantees. 7- Chazon Ish (Deshevi'is 18, #4): The blessing did apply during the 2nd Temple and after its destruction, for the heavenly court fulfills based on what's decreed down below. Rabbi Rakeffet identifies the SMA with the position of the Meshekh Chokhmah, and the Chazon Ish with R' Elchanan Wassermnn's. To my mind, it's possible that his position is more like the Shulchan Arukh haRav. However, this explains why the Chazon Ish was so willing to be stringent when it came to keeping shemittah. Had he felt that the observance didn't come with insurance from the A-lmighty, perhaps he would have ruled leniently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:31:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589CB8.8080308@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 04:01 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > in this documentary > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is > claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few > babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work > in the long run. That only makes sense for women who are planning a particular size of family, and use birth control the rest of the time. I don't see how it could possibly work for women who never use birth control, and whose "plan" is to have as many children as Hashem sends. How could having more than one at a time reduce the total number of pregnancies? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 16:18:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:18:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160608231854.GC16414@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:40:42PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? : : "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. : For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* : anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". Which is why it's intransitive. I included the "Li" in my quote because the prepositional phrase was part of my point. "Lekhahein" is not the verb of being a kohein or being made a kohein, but doing a kohein's job. Also, Yeshaiah 61:10, "kechasan yekhahein pe'eir". Even any case, I found this in the Seforno on the pasuq: And with this you will be a segulah from among them [referring to "vehyisem li segulah" in the previous pasuq]. Because you will be a "mamlekhes kohanim" to understand and teach to the entire human species that all will call in Hashem's name and to serve Him "with one shoulder"... Which not only makes my diqduq point, he clealy speaks of a duty to actively instruct the world -- ROS writes "lehoros lekhol hamin ha'enoshi". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:23:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:23:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: R' Zev Zero wrote: > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand experiences with the job, too. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:50:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:50:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Authorial Programs Message-ID: I've been leading a chaburah studying the Minchat Chinuch. It's quite interesting trying to figure out why he dives into some topics in detail and others he says would be too long, or this isn't the place to discuss detail or he's "not holding" in it right now. Makes me wonder how many mechabrim have a conscious, programmatic approach versus a subconscious approach or no unifying theme. Anyone aware of any analysis? 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 Wed Jun 8 22:30:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:30:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* > a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" > on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) > The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only an asmachta. > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not > : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be > what > : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara > that > : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. > If > : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... > > His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This > would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on > their audience. > > Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently > includes conflicting laws. > That is not the Meshech Chochmas point. His point is that we as human beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the action. > : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why > : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the > : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, > : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast > : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the > : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. > > This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs > to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo > sasur cannot apply. > This is not the Ran it is the meshech chochma explaining the Rambam > Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq > de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. > ... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps > shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore > came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. > > > R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of > Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 > min. in). As is my norm, > I add bits here and there. > ... > But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic > law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, > neither to the left nor to the right"? > > 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made > the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the > case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between > Torah and rabbinic law. > This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the opinion of the Ran. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 22:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:34:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger nisayon then Yosef faced? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:22:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" is only d'rabanan. In other words, if one has a legitimate safek about whether he did a d'Oraisa, then it is a smart idea and/or a rabbinic obligation to resolve that safek, but he is not required by the Torah to do so. I don't know if the above is correct, but if it is then it could be very relevant to the current discussion. For example, a safek d'rabanan might be a sort of "sfeik sfeika", and therefore go l'kula. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 07:31:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:31:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cholov Stam Outside of the US Message-ID: <1465482641540.74929@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/hezpyyn Q: I am planning a vacation to some foreign countries, and I assume that since I drink cholov stam, I can drink the milk in the countries I visit. I wanted to double-check with you, just in case. (A consumer's question) A: It's a good thing that you contacted us! The heter of cholov stam, which was explained in the previous installment of Halcha Yomis, only pertains to countries which have adequate dairy regulations. The OU's poskim have ruled that European Union nations and other countries with well-enforced dairy regulations qualify for the heter of cholov stam. In countries where such regulations are lacking or are poorly enforced, milk remains prohibited as cholov akum and requires on-site kashrus supervision in order to be permissible. To inquire about a specific destination please contact the OU via kosherq at ou.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:43:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AAB7.5050807@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 09:22 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" > is only d'rabanan. See Shev Shmaatsa at great length on this question. I don't remember his conclusion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 09:24:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:24:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160609162401.GB31542@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowlderized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Second, being gadol hador just makes it worse. Kol hagadol mechaveiro yitzro gadol heimenu. (An idea with way too much evidence in support in the newspapers. Not the drequency of the stories, it's still man-bites-dog. But the things religious people and other role models are caught doing that most of us aren't tempted to do....) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AA0E.60404@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 05:23 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Zero wrote: > > > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. > > I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. > > Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. > "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" > > Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand > experiences with the job, too. It was expected that all of Shevet Levi would devote themselves to learning, since they had nothing else to do, and since they got in that position in the first place mostly by dint of having already been the Torah-learning class in Mitzrayim (which role they got simply by staying in the beis medrash when everyone else ran out to do their civic duty) it was natural that they would continue. Thus it was expected that they would be prominent in the Sanhedrin ("uvasa el hacohanim haleviyim") and "yoru mishpatecha leyaacov". But there was no requirement on any individual Cohen or Levi to do so; they were given land for farming around each of their cities, and by the late 2nd bayis it appears that most cohanim, or at least a large proportion of them, were amei ha'aretz, and this did not make them less Cohanim. From this I conclude that Torah is not part of the job, but rather something to do when you're *not* on the job. The actual job of kehuna was a well-paid sinecure that Hashem gave them so they would have the time to do this other thing on their own, much as one is supposed to let a Talmid Chacham sell his goods first in the market, so he can get out of there and back to his "hobby". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:08:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:08:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Message-ID: <000001d1c250$098a3600$1c9ea200$@actcom.net.il> Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. She was not a stranger accosting him on the street, she was not a work colleague (with whom there are certain professional boundaries) nor was she the girl at the checkout counter. (Platonic relationships had not been invented yet-yes, I'm being sarcastic. There is probably no such thing as a truly platonic relationship between a straight man and a straight woman, which is why we are enjoined to be tznu'im. En apotropus le'arayot, remember?) His own wife had died a couple of months before (at the start of the barley harvest) which probably meant he was lonely and certainly meant that involvement with Rut would not have been an emotional betrayal of his wife. It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. It was highly unlikely that anyone would have known about a one-time liaison between them, so there would have been no hillul haShem, and Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 07:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:30:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, Some want to distinguish between different types of safek 1) safek in the :metziut" 2) safek in the din 3) machloket poskim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 10:25:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:25:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] temimos re: last day of shavuos Message-ID: <20160610172550.NHHT21830.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> I was doing some learning with a Kollel guy in a chabura about s'firas ha'omer, and I asked RSM's famous question, pitting "tosafos yom tov" vs the minhag that the Taz mentions of waiting until the end of the 49th day to count because of "temimos." The Rav thought it was a great question, and he took it back to his Rosh HaKollel, who, among other things asked: if this is such a good kashya, why does nobody even bring it up for 200 years after the Taz? Quite "coincidentally", he ran into a 32-page packet, just produced by BMG in Lakewood, that is on this very question. So, for your interest and/or Shavous study, see , or https://www.dropbox.com/s/ig0jxw2ye3xlpjy/%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99.pdf?dl=0 (you can download it) Good shabbos and a gutten yuntiff! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 13:36:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160610203636.GA30587@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:30:15PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the : Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, .... This was discussed earlier on this thread, right before RAM's question: Me: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#03 the other RMB: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#08 :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 03:24:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:24:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20160614102429.GA26569@aishdas.org> I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that post-modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever know to be objectively true. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs... I think post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. However, I can know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. So, the folk there pointed me to Rav Shagar (Rav Shimon Gershon Rosenberg), a DL postmodern baal machashavah. Along the way, someone mentioned R/Dr Alan Brill's blog post of notes he made to himself teaching R Shagar's works. or . To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true to Ayin. Given their advice, and the hopes that I could find common language with the post-modern among my own children, I spent part of the "3 day yom tov" with R' Shagar. Given my opening rejection in post-modernism, as well as a couple of comments made by Dr Brill, I must admit I may not have been fair. Perhaps one of his fans is lurking on list and wants to clear up wht I misunderstood. As R/Dr Brill put it "The very question" in the prior sentence, not quoted, "shows that Shagar is treating postmodernism as an ism to adopt rather than the current condition of our lives like the prior existential-psychological era that we did not choice but were embedded within." R Shagar builds a case for the condition of believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. An inability to believe that something is objectively true into the belief in of an objective Ayin. Help? 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 Tue Jun 14 14:10:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:10:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 16:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:00:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <598c06.3f27511.4491e6a3@aol.com> [1] From: Micha Berger via Avodah Subject: Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? [--R' Marty Bluke] I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowdlerized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org [2] From: Simi Peters via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. .... It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. ....Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters [3] From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah Subject: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth >>I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her?<<[--R' Marty Bluke] As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. .... So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love...lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana >>>>> [1] Over the years I too have wondered about the use of the word "margalosav" instead of "raglosav" and came to a similar conclusion to RMB's, that is, since "margolios" are pearls, the pasuk might be talking about the family jewels. However I did not assume that Rus /actually/ uncovered Boaz in that way but rather, that uncovering his feet was a way to hint to him that he should uncover something else -- not that night, but in due course. That he should act as her goel, that he should marry her and have children with her. [2] Yes, Boaz liked her and admired her but when Chazal say that the evening was a great nisayon for him they are clearly saying that on that night, he was attracted to her and had the desire and opportunity to sin. The nisayon was much more than "he didn't want to hurt her feelings." And she wasn't so "lonely and socially isolated"-- she could easily have married a much younger man, as Boaz says when he speaks of her great chessed in approaching him instead of going after the bachurim. [3] The idea that he was "deeply in love with her" is a stretch but yes, he clearly had feelings for her. Until that night I would say his feelings were mainly protective and paternal -- he always called her "biti, my daughter" -- but that night, under those circumstances, a yetzer hara was aroused that does not seem to have been there before. After all, months had passed and he had not suggested marriage, which was the very reason Naomi resorted to such an unconventional strategy. [4] I want to add one more point, which is that not all old men are the same. R' MBluke started this thread by asking why this should be such a nisayon when Boaz was "the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man." That the Gadol Hador could be overtaken by illicit desires we already know from many previous incidents involving Yehuda, Shimshon, Dovid Hamelech and others. As for old men, many lose desire as well as the ability to act on their desires, but we know that this was not the case with Boaz from the very fact that he did indeed father a child with Rus. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 15:49:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:30:47AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* :> a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" :> on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) : The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo : tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only : an asmachta. And later: :> 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made :> the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the :> case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between :> Torah and rabbinic law. : This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and : then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the : opinion of the Ran. What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling you why the pasuq "lo sasur" is not an azahara, and not a complete denial that the power to make a derabanan is from the Torah. As the Ramban puts it, shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on the pasuq. Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: :>: R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating :>: explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not :>: necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what :>: Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that :>: a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If :>: every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... ... : His point is that we as human : beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when : making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the : act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to : their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the : action. I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects their legislation. Or, ein hatzibur yalhol la'amod bam, which is the category all the MC's examples demonstrate. In either case, he talks about the difference between a deOraisa, where one might ch"v eat chazir because of a safeiq and a derabbanan where, as you put it "the value is in listening to their words". It is from that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. 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 Tue Jun 14 16:24:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:24:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160614232420.GB5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:23am CEST, R Arie Folger quoted Yechezqeil ben Buzi haKohein (44:23): : Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. : "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and : profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" RAYK (MiDevar Shor 16) writes that this is why we're called "beni bekhori Yisrael". The kehunah of the bekhor, to serve as either shaliach haMaqom to the family, or their shaliach before Him. See or . Also see Mal'akhei 2:7, for a similar definition of kehunah (WRT benei Aharon): Ki sifsei khohein yishmeru da'as veSorah yebaqshu mipihu.... RAYK's point is much like the LR's words when launchind the Noachide campaign: A particular task [is] to educate and to encourage the observance of the Seven Laws among all people. The religious tolerance of today, and the trend towards greater freedom, gives us the unique opportunity to enhance widespread observance of these laws. For it is by adherence to these laws, which are in and of themselves an expression of Divine goodness, that all humankind is united and bound by a common moral responsibility to our Creator. This unity promotes peace and harmony among all people, thereby achieving the ultimate good. As the Psalmist said: "How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 04:39:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:39:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon wrote: > So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was > deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it > only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his > wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world > to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at > his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 05:25:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:25:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I agree that "deeply in love" is probably be too much - but I think it is quite plausible that he was falling in love with her, whether he realized it before that night or not. It certainly makes it much easier to understand the nisayon if that is the case. And even if romantic love is much more emphasized in our time and culture than many others, I find it unlikely that it did not exist at all in Biblical times. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 13:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:44:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> I said that ?Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her.? This is not a claim that he was ?in love with her? (nusah 21st century) and is not the projection of a Western conception of Romantic love (nusah 14th century). Men and women have always been attracted to each other and loved each other which has, b?H, ensured the survival of the human race. Yitzhak avinu is described as loving Rivka imenu (after marriage); Yaakov avinu is described as loving Rahel imenu and Mikhal bat Shaul is described as loving David (in both cases before marriage. What is being described is an emotion, not an action.) And while Shir haShirim is allegorical, the allegory describes a profound, intense and sensual love. Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. Hazal do not find strange the idea that an old man might have sexual feeling and reactions. (Consider their description of David and Avishag in the presence of Batsheva.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From: Marty Bluke [mailto:marty.bluke at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:40 PM To: Ilana Elzufon Cc: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group ; Simi Peters Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon > wrote: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 23:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:39:55PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us : projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a : situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". When it comes to Yaaqov and Rachel, we find even more explicit description of a couple who who romantically in love. "Vaya'avod Yaaqov beRacheil 7 shanim, vayihyu be'einav kayamim achachdim be'ahavaso osahh". I think that academic claims of how much the human condition has changed over the millennia need to be checked against our belief that while TSBP evolves over time, halakhah does its redemptive work for generation after generation. Yes, many things have changed. The industrialist who relates to time with the linear instruments of a clock and day planner experiences something very different than the farmer's cycles of day and night and of annual seasons. Both of which are very different than the post-telecom experience of time which is dominated by events to respond to (phone, email, text/IM), more so than a preplanned schedule. But far more stays the same than would make for good PhD theses. 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 Jun 15 23:38:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:38:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. A ra'ayah for the Ramban is Yevamos 61a, which says that zenus (eg WRT marrying a kohein) is relations between two people who are not allowed to marry. Not all two people who aren't actually married. The Rambam (lav 355) cites the Sifra, Qedoshim 77. However, the Sifra inside distinguishes between being mechalel one's daughter lesheim zenus vs not lesheim zenus. So I don't get it. 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 Thu Jun 16 01:36:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:36:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They > try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak > metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". Truthfully, I never understood that whole story. Avraham was very well known generally and certainly by Avimelech and it was common knowledge that Avraham had a "miracle" son at the age of 100 but no daughters. How could this ruse have possible worked? Additionally, how could Yitzchak and Rivka have been meshamesh bayom where someone could see them? In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came after he married her and brought her into his tent. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Simi Peters wrote: > Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud > with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not > have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: >: The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >: any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >: malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. Even the Ramban who says that there is no technical issur d'oraysa, would probably declare this kind of behaviour is naval birshus hatorah and certainly not what the Gadol Hador should be doing. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 05:47:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:47:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gemara narrative Message-ID: <23bc4e6f392f4404bbfbd7d994e281a8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you are learning gemara and you come to a give and take where the hava amina seems strange (e.g. maakot 14a where the gemaras first assumes the rabbanan learn a din from lchaleik yatzah and ask where does R' Yitzchak learn it from. Gemara answers from a different pasuk and then asks why don't the rabbanan learn it from there. the answer is ein haci nami?! -- so why record the whole misattribution of reason, and how did they know/not know) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 01:47:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:47:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling > Ramban puts it, > shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah > aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma > lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav > As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power > to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on > the pasuq. > Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that > following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu > bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With your formulation that question still arises. > Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: ... >: His point is that we as human >: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when >: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the >: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to >: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the >: action. > I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el > Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects > their legislation. If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 08:10:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:10:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616151039.GF25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:47:01AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: :> As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power :> to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on :> the pasuq. :> Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that :> following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu :> bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. : The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on : lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With : your formulation that question still arises. With a mitzvah de'oraisa, oso lav is deOraisa. We do not cook meat with milk because of a derashah from a pasuq that is specifically about oso lav -- basar bechalav. With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav. (Earlier version had "bachaleiv imo", but mentioning bird milk seems too silly even for an imaginary pasuq.) I find the question cleanly -- and to my thinking, intuitively -- avoided. AISI, my read of the Ramban is an intuitive take on the chiluq. :> Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: : ... :>: His point is that we as human :>: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when :>: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the :>: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to :>: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the :>: action. :> I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el :> Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects :> their legislation. : If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. As I said, cart-and-horse. The causality is that the rejection is being offered "in response" (kevayakhol) to the law. Not that the law is to be rejected because they failed to respond to His Will. Yes, whether A causes B or B causes A, you still end up with both. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:07:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:07:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, : the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came : after he married her and brought her into his tent. I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" in differing ways. 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 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:12:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:12:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> What are the pragmatic reasons? In particular what happens when the reason for the derabbanan no longer exists. Is there a difference on the origin of the derabbanan? One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:58:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:58:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:12:28PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos :> as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans :> which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. : What are the pragmatic reasons? Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. OTOH, a gezeirah is pragmatic -- nothing happenms to you for vioolating it. The whole thing is a means of preventing ending up committing a real sin. Is there power to lighting a menorah of Chanukah, or did Chazal just have to pick /something/ to standardize how people fulfil the general deOraisa of commemorating a neis? Second day yom tov nowadays, does it connect to some supernal koakh, as the SA haRav says? Or is it a way to keep alive memory that the calendar ought to be al pi re'iyah? : In particular what happens when the reason : for the derabbanan no longer exists. The fact that the consumer is totally disconnected from shechitah and kashering nowadays might have rendered the gezeira of owf bechalav superfluous. People have little reason to confuse the rules of one with the other. But even if it's true that the reason stated in the gemara no longer exists, would anyone would say it is therefore no longer in force? Even though the motive is pragmatic., Is this baserd on the idea that we have to be chosheshim for unstated reasons and those may not be pragmatic? What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:10:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:10:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did sleep together. I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. Ben ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah > : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get > : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:07:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:07:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> On 06/16/2016 03:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >> : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >> : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. >> >> Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. > In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did > sleep together.I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they did more than that. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:18:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. > > One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual > damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of > that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or > psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite > taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. > If one assumes that the only problem is rebellion like the netivot then milk in poultry has no spiritual damage (the problem is gavra not cheftza) > > > : In particular what happens when the > reason > : for the derabbanan no longer exists. > > What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out > any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all > to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. > Not all takanot are to protect a deoraita. In any case the original question was why we are obligated by these takanot > > : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic > : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists > > Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention > anyway. > Not all kinyanim. More importantly not every monrtary takanah in shas has to do with kinyanim. There are loads of takanot for the good of commerce. In the change from an agragrian society to a business society to a high tech society much is no longer relevant -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 01:00:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:00:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:08 PM > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, >: the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came >: after he married her and brought her into his tent. > I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. > In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in > love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in > particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" > in differing ways. Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman (40 years old, according to Hazal). Rut is a lonely woman. She knows that she is a social pariah, looked upon with suspicion as a Moabite and not likely to bask in the social glow of Naomi's connections because Naomi abandoned them all during the famine and has very little social capital herself. This is why she tells Naomi that she will go gleaning where they will let her--she's expecting to be thrown out of some places. This is also part of the reason Boaz tells her to stay in his field--he knows the social climate of his town. And Naomi is extremely surprised that Rut has come back with so much grain; it means that someone has helped her--not something Naomi expected under the circumstances. Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). The halakha was still in dispute well into the lifetime of David (Yevamot). Tov (aka Ploni Almoni) is practically in a panic when he refuses the marriage to Rut--he wants the field, but no strings attached "pen ash'hit et nahalati." Only Boaz has the guts to champion Rut's cause because he has the authority to do so, has the social clout to do so, he cares about her, and he is touched by her trust in him and her courage in coming to speak to him at the goren. Rut's acceptance into society only comes with her marriage to Boaz and Naomi's rehabilitation with her neighbors only comes with the birth of Oved. [Email #2 -micha] I believe that 'margelotav' is like 'merashotav' (Bereshit 28:11). The 'mem' is not part of the shoresh and I don't think it is a pun. It may be an oblique reference to halitza and, by extension, to yibum, a delicate way of indicating that, while what Naomi wants for Rut is not technically yibum, it is the yibum-like 'hakamat shem be'nahala'. See the perush of the Malbim on the mitzvah of yibum, where he compares the mitzvah to the yibum-like story of Yehuda and Tamar on the one hand, and Rut and Boaz on the other. When a man says to a woman, "You could marry anybody. Why have you picked me?" that is a compliment, not necessarily a statement of fact. Part of what impresses Boaz about what Rut has done is that she is willing to marry an old man when that goes against the nature of things. As Hazal say on this pasuk, a woman would prefer to marry a young, poor man rather than an old, rich man (gold diggers aside). Rut has set aside her natural inclinations in order to do hesed for her mother-in-law. The words may also be read as an expression of Boaz's sense of gratitude and wonder in finding his one-in-a- million woman (and Rut is indeed exceptional) especially at a time in his life when he did not expect to marry again. When Boaz encounters Rut he has just gotten up from shiva for his wife. Either way, Boaz is not commenting on Rut's bountiful marriage prospects, which are pretty much non-existent (as I argued in the previous post.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 05:18:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:18:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: RnSP: Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as > the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her > mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite > and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because > it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly > idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). > Does Boaz's idealism extend to not quite grasping how different his attitude towards Rut is from everyone else's? His response when she comes to the goren seems to indicate that he had assumed she had many marriage options from among the younger men. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:04:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:04:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> Message-ID: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. Ben On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > > It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same > bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they > did > more than that. > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:57:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> On 06/17/2016 09:04 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Ben > > On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> >> It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same >> bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they >> did more than that. > Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira > it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? Yes, exactly. > That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. No, it doesn't. It has no connection whatsoever to that machlokes, and I'm astonished that you see a connection. *Everyone* agrees that there is no issur mid'oraisa on a man and woman sharing a bed, even if she's *definitely* a niddah, let alone if it's only a possibility. Everyone agrees that nowadays it's assur mid'rabanan, even if she's only possibly a niddah. Everyone also agrees that nowadays there's an issur yichud even if she's definitely *not* a niddah. None of this has any connection to the machlokes about what level of issur is involved in an unmarried couple having sex. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 07:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 17 11:03:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! Message-ID: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise thought of on our own. He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: 1. A town has a single shochet. A younger shochet wants to move in to town with the latest "shochet" technology -- whatever that is. The point is that he thinks he can provide his services more efficiently and at less cost to the community. In this case, the gemara tells us (al pi this rav-writer) that the beis din of the town can decide that the town can't support the competition, and weigh the fact that the older shochet might be put out of business, etc. I.e., the beis din has a lot of room to enforce a non-competitive monopoly here. 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- competition that might provide a better product is more important than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. The point that this writer was making, again, is that this distinction is not something we might have thought on our own. I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 12:47:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 22:47:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of the wheat harvest.) So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters -----Original Message----- From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 5:13 PM To: Rn Simi Peters ; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Marty Bluke ; Rn Toby Katz Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 14:01:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:01:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> Message-ID: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same >> gezira. > > Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:39:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I'm wondering if you considered the possibility that "lo bashamayim hee" might teach us that their legislation IS His will, by definition. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 14:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:35:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom _______________________________________________ It's complex! Enjoy http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:23:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allen Gerstl via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 70 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 R' Sholom Simon wrote: > 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a > teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks > he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage > competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out > of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- > competition that might provide a better product is more important > than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. . . . > > I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they > all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! > > I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this > idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Please see http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html The above issue is discussed at about footnote 22 (about three quarters of the way down in the article) and the Gemorah cited is Baba Batra 21b-22a I recall a similar question coming before the late Rav Gedaliah Felder, the posek of Toronto and that he told a group of us participating in a shiur that he gave. He had ruled as above. KT Eliyahu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:17:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:17:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> On 06/18/2016 05:01 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >>> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. >> >> Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > > That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping > in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate > any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion > about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Sorry, you're contradicting the very Taz you're invoking. He says *explicitly* that the issue he's discussing is being in the same bed, not anything else. Because as we all know it's forbidden for a man to be in the same bed as a niddah, even if they don't touch each other. And *that* is the question the Taz asks about Boaz and Ruth. If she was a niddah then how could they be in the same bed? And he answers that the gezera had not yet been made, so she wasn't a niddah. The same answer explains how Yehuda and Tamar could have sex; the gezera that would make her a niddah hadn't yet been enacted. The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything more into it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:03:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:03:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I believe it's a Chazon Ish. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > thought of on our own. > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:45:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: <20160619034555.GA2854@aishdas.org> Anyone interested in our perrennial about minhag avos and minhag hamaqom would likely be interested in R' David Brofsky's Teasers: ... Individual Customs The Torah teaches that in addition to the obligations and prohibitions imposed by the Torah, an individual has the ability to create personal obligations (Vayikra 5:4) or prohibitions (Bemidbar 30:3), known as nedarim and shevuot ... Family Customs As we shall see below, the Talmud teaches that one is also obligated to observe the customs of one's locality (minhag ha-makom), even if one leaves the place, until permanently relocating in another place. In addition to observing the custom of one's "place," is there a halakhically binding category of minhag avot, according to which one would be obligated to follow the customs of one's family? ... Local or Communal Customs As mentioned above, the Talmud (Pesachim 50a) teaches that one is obligated to observe the "minhag ha-makom", local custom. This obligation, as we shall see, is incumbent upon the residents of that place. Where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Passover until midday one may do [work]; where it is the custom not to do [work], one may not do [work]. ... Minhag and Pesak Halakhah In addition to being bound by local extra-halakhic customs, the Talmud teaches that if it is customary in a certain place to follow a specific halakhic view, that halakhic opinion becomes binding. For example, the Gemara[39] relates: ... Gut Voch! -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 Sun Jun 19 03:33:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:33:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and other differences between biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. <> what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to protect deoraisa laws. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 02:25:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 12:25:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> References: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:27 AM, wrote: > > > In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field > until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three > months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer > until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..* > That raises a whole other set of questions, namely when and how was Rus misgayer? Rashi at the beginning of the Megila claims that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women and Rus was only megayer later. Others claim that it can't be that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women so it must be that they were megayer them. The Bach for example states that Rus was megayer to marry at the beginning and then later was megayer a second time lshem shamayim. R' Shternbuch in Moadim Uzmanim claims that they were minors and therefore when they came of age could be moche and therefore Rus was megayer a second time (ayen sham). Therefore it is pretty difficult to tie the 3 months into the geirus. In any case the din of waiting 3 months is a din drabbanan of havchana, that you should be able to tell the difference between a child conceived as a non-Jew versus a child conceived as a Jew. For all we know this din drabbanan had not yet been formulated in the days of Boaz and therefore is irrelevant. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 21:27:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:27:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> In a message dated 6/18/2016 3:48:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, familyp2 at actcom.net.il writes: So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters >>>> In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:16:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:16:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160619121630.GC24863@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:47:45PM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley : harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they : won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end : of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of : the wheat harvest.) ... I thought "ad kelos se'ir hase'orim uqetzir hachitim" referred to the end of the overlap time. Which is how I got such a tight estimate. You appear to be reading it "until the end of the barley harvest, [and then beyond, until] the end of the wheat harvest." Which, despite needing the bracketed insertion, is quite plausible. But not the assumption I had been working with. In any case, even in a matter of months, we would still be talking about romantic love. To my mind, any couple in love before the love that that grows out of building a life together are experiencing romantic love. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:27:47AM -0400, RnTK wrote: : In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field : until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months : because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she : can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) The harvest season isn't three months, even according to RnSP's understanding of the pasuq. And that taqanah derabbanan almost certainly didn't exist yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160619120740.GB24863@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 01:33:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to :> obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH :> said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav : : The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and : other differences between : biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and : milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. At this point our topic is broader than that. We are back one step at whether lo sasur is a derashah or an asmachta. Yes, if every derabbanan is "lo sasur", then we need to ask about safeiq derabbanan lequlah. But if not, what is the source of their authority-- REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" Which then raised the question of whether following chakhamim actually is living according to the design of the world, as REW holds, or :> What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out :> any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all :> to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to : protect deoraisa laws. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. 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 Sun Jun 19 05:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:37:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:21:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> Message-ID: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing before marrying a woman. When people get married, they don't just sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Ben On 6/19/2016 5:17 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth > did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything > more into it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: < What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. > I am not claiming anything metaphysical. It just seems to me that not all rabbinical decrees are to help a deoraisa. I am certainly not baki enough to go through every rabbinical law but certainly some others include eruvin, most importantly almost all berachot, davening (certainly according to those that disagree with Rambam), shevat brachot. As I said before there are loads of decrees in monetary matters that are not just nezikin including prozbul, takanat hashuk, bar metzra. Again I would have to review the 3 Babas to come up with a more detailed list. Even in hilchot shabbat/yomtov we have candle lighting and other aspects of oneg, much of the seder, -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 21:15:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> <576766B2.50408@sero.name> Message-ID: <57676DE5.2000701@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 11:44 PM, I wrote: > On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the >> halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing >> before marrying a woman. > > There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. I just realised my meaning may not have been completely plain. What I meant by this is that they can have a chuppas niddah. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 20:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the > halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing > before marrying a woman. There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. The halacha in question is that when a woman agrees to get married she is presumed to have become a niddah, and must therefore count 7 days like any niddah. (Note that it's not the proposal that triggers this, nor is it her verbal acceptance, but her internal decision to accept it.) The Taz quotes the Maggid Mishneh that this is midrabanan, and says that this explains two problems we would have if it were mid'oraisa. One is Yehuda and Tamar: *not* how they could have sex, but how she could have told him that she was tehora, when by definition she has just become temeiah. The second was Boaz and Ruth: how they could have slept in the same bed. He says this *explicitly* so I don't understand how anyone can possibly misunderstand it. > When people get married, they don't just > sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and > finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Again, you are contradicting the very Taz you are quoting. He says in so many words that the problem we would have with Boaz and Ruth, if this halacha were mid'oraisa, is that she entered his bed. How can you claim that's not his concern, when he says it is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 11:42:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160620184259.GC12092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:37:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" : which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa I think quite the reverse. His saying that we follow the rabbis because not heading their advice would be stupid does not actually make the derabbanan mandatory. And I still think the Ramban is saying that the power of chazal to legislate is from lo sasur, but that does not elevate the product of their legislation to deOraisa. Thus his repeated reference to "zeh halav" in distinction to "'lo sasur' keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah". This makes a strong contrast to R' Mesamyah's position, "sheyeish bikhlal lav de-'lo sasur' kol mah shhu midivrei chakhamim..." One might employ parallel logic to REW's shitah, if it proves necessary. Remember that the Ramban's central problem isn't the same as the one which led us to this discussion. He is defending the idea that "lo sasur" is one of the 613, but (unlike the Behag) the particular mitzvos derabbanan are not each counted among them. Safeiq derabbanan lequlah is tangential to his main point, and more noted than explained. Also, I repeatedly contrasted the Meshekh Chokhmah's position (Devarim 17:11), that mitzvos derabbanan are "pragmatic", meaning the iqar is obedience, as opposed to conforming to Retzon Hashem, which I characterized as having metaphysical effect - or avoiding negtive effects. And since they're about obedience, borderline cases like safeiq derabbanan which are not rebellious can be meiqil, we do not have to worry about spiritual damage. If the mitzvah had inherent value aside from obedience, safeiq derabbanan lequlah would be a license to play Russian Roullete. I realized Retzon Hashem could also be framed less mystically in terms of desired ethics / relationship with Him, whether an asei to foster them or a lav to avoid flaws (a more rationalistic take on spiritual damage that is probably describing the same thing). Values and virtues. And in this formulation, there is no clear line between laws that Chazal would set up to implement a general deOraisa din (eg pirsumei nisa and ner Chanukah) and laws that implement His values. The broader mitzvos get kind of mussar-y / valu-ish. Like ve'asisa hayashar vehatov. On a related topic, 20 agurot from AhS Yomi. YD 201:206 (there are 218 se'ifim in the siman). There is a question whether a miqvah where most of the water is mayim she'uvim is pasul deOraisa or derabannan, or if even a miqvah that is entirely mayim she'uvim is "only" pasul miderabbanan. 3 positions: pasul deOraisa at rov, pasul deOraisa when there is entirely she'uvim, or never pasul deOraisa. The pesul derabbnan starts at 3 log is they were poured in before the 40 se'ah were complete; rov otherwise -- unless rov is deOraisa The Toras Kohanim learns the pesul of mayim she'uvim from "akh ma'yan uvor miqeih mayim" just as a maayan is made by G-d, so must the gathered water of a miqvah. But it is possible that this is an asmachta, or that it's a derashah about using actual tamei keilim but generalizing to she'uvim is asmachta, or... (See se'if 17) Now the relevant bit. In se'if 210, the AhS opines (nir'eh LAD) that because there is an asmachta, we cannot simply say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Thus ruling out the Rambam's idea that asmachtos are just mnemonic and polemic tools; he is saying they actually change the authority of the derabbanan. And if could change whether the iqar is obedience, limiting that possibility only to dinim derabbanan that have no asmachtos. IFF RYME buys into that idea at all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 08:31:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:31:48 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ie the current issue is about one who has specifically violated tora laws related to even haezer related issues. i wonder if crimes against secular governments would fall under the same type of reasoning , which as i understand , is only due to a 'bizayon hatora' . it would seem that any type of crime might fit that bill.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 12:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:45:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: , <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ------------------------------------ "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). 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 Mon Jun 20 13:57:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:57:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=24398 r reuven feinstein [around minute 35 ] responds on this tora umesora Q and A on how the haredi teacher should deal with Hallel on YH. thiswil presumably be more of a bedieved, since lechatchila schools that celebrate YH shouldn't have to rely on teachers that don't on there faculty, and increasingly may not need to.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 15:10:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:10:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> References: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160620221046.GA32539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:45:55PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is : not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). R' Shimon Shkop discusses this gemara near the end of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher. Leshitaso, there is a difference between a rebbe from whom "yevaqeish Torah mipihu" and learning from someone else, who could even be an Acher. But to my mind it is worth knowing and contemplating what our Sages said on Chagiga folio 15b. How could Rabbi Meir receive Torah from the mouth of Acheir [the former Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya, after he became a heretic]. Doesn't Rabba bar bar Chana quote R' Yochanan [in Chagiga as saying] "What does it mean when it says 'For the kohein's lips should keep knowledge; they should see Torah from his lips, for he is the angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts" (Malachi 2:7)? If the rav is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts, seek Torah from his mouth. And if not, do not seek Torah from his mouth." And the Talmud concludes, "There is no question this [Rabbi Meir studying under Acheir] is with someone great, this [the verse] is of someone of smaller stature." It is worth understanding according to this how Rabbi Yochanan spoke without elaboration, since he speaks only of the smaller statured, not the greats. One may say that we should be exacting in that Rabbi Yochanan said, "seek Torah from his mouth" and not "learn from him". For in truth, one who learns from his peer does not learn from the mouth of the person who is teaching him, but listens and weighs on the scales of his mind, and then he understands the concept. This is not learning "from the mouth of" his teacher, but from the mind of the teacher. "Torah from the mouth" is only considered accepting the concepts as he heard them, with no criticism. And it was by this idea that Rabbi Yochanan spoke about accepting Torah from the mouth [i.e. uncritically] only if the rabbi is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts. And according to this, in Rabbi Yochanan's words is hinted a distinction between who is of smaller stature and who is great. The one of smaller stature will learn Torah from the mouth, for he is unable to decide what to draw near and want to keep away. Whereas a person of great stature who has the ability to decide [critically] does not learn Torah from [someone else's] mouth. Similarly, it's appropriate to alert anyone who contemplates the books of acharonim that they should not "learn Torah from their mouths", they shouldn't make a fundamental out of everything said in their words before they explore well those words. Something similar to a reminder of this idea can be learned from what the gemara says in Bava Metzia, chapter "One Who Hires Workers" [85b]. Rabbi Chiya said, "I made it so that the Torah would not be forgotten from Israel." It explains there that he would plant linen, spread out nets [made of tat linen, thereby] hunt deer, made parchment [of their hides], and wrote [on them] chumash texts. This hints that whatever is in our power to prepare from the beginning of the Torah, it is incumbent on us to do ourselves, according to the ability that was inherited to us to explore and understand. And not to rely on the words of the gedolim who preceded us. 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 Tue Jun 21 02:57:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Potential Role of Orthodox Judaism in a "Fractured Republic" Message-ID: <20160621095708.GA20821@aishdas.org> [Rabbi] "Meir Soloveichik on Yuval Levin's 'The Fractured Republic'" or https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/meir-soloveichik-yuval-levins-fractured-republic ... Levin is undoubtedly correct about the state of American religion, both in diagnosis and prescription, and reading his book has made me more convinced that it is at this moment that American Orthodox Judaism may have found a unique calling. As Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik has pointed out, religious Jews have always sought to embody Abraham's identification of himself in the Bible as a ger vetoshav--a stranger and a neighbor, aware of what makes one different while engaging the world and, like Abraham in Canaan, speaking candidly and eloquently about why they are different. Last summer, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who is also a devout Christian, struck by how so many traditionalists feel that they now live in a culture not welcoming to them... As I argued in a recent symposium in Mosaic, the Jewish example can lead faith communities in a joint project to safeguard an America that will allow all of us to be "strangers and neighbors" --to fight for our religious freedom and distinctiveness, while also articulating a conservative vision of the American idea--and thereby illustrating how traditionalists can, in Levin's words, "live out their faiths and their ways in the world." 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 Tue Jun 21 14:13:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:13:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: <20160621211321.GA8586@aishdas.org> RGS posted a link to on Torah Musings: Jewish Action HALACHAH AND THE FALLEN RABBI: Q & A WITH RABBI HERSHEL SCHACHTER JA Mag | June 4, 2015 in Jewish Law By Avrohom Gordimer ... Jewish Action: Can one still follow the piskei halachah of a fallen rabbi? Rabbi Schachter: No. The pasuk in Navi (Malachi 2:7), as expounded by the gemara (Moed Katan 17a), says that a Torah teacher must be sinless and righteous like a malach (angel). According to the Torah, we only follow a rabbi's ruling if he properly models Torah behavior. If he is a ba'al aveirah, if he knowingly violates Biblical or rabbinic laws, he is not qualified to teach and render halachic rulings. When members of the public become aware of his improper behavior, they may no longer rely on his judgment for any rulings, unless it can be verified that such rulings were rendered before the rabbi's sinful conduct began. Since it is often not possible to ascertain when these rulings were rendered, one should ask another rabbi for a new pesak. Although people use [Marcus] Jastrow's [Aramaic] dictionary [for Talmudic and Midrashic terminology], and I was told that Jastrow was not Orthodox, that is different because that is an issue of translation, not pesak (halachic adjudication). For a pesak, a rabbi needs to consider all issues before him, and weigh and evaluate them. It is very different than mere translation. To issue halachic rulings, one must be part of the chachmei haMesorah (Torah scholars who follow the Torah's traditions). A rabbi who sins, especially if he commits a crime, is certainly not in this category. JA: What does one do with the sefarim written by such a rabbi? RS: They should not be used. Since his sefarim include his ideas and rulings, they fit into the prohibition against studying Torah from someone who is unfit due to his improper behavior. Any time someone writes a sefer, he fleshes out and resolves apparently contradictory passages. This is called being machria--providing one's own resolutions in Torah study. The type of person we are discussing is not qualified to be machria and, therefore, his sefarim cannot be used. If it can be verified that the sefarim and the halachic rulings were issued before this person's sinful behavior began, only then can they be relied upon and quoted. JA: Can we/should we continue to cite divrei Torah in his name? RS: We are not allowed to do so. The gemara (Avodah Zarah 35b) says that if a rabbi violates halachah, one cannot say divrei Torah in his name. The statements found in the Talmud in the name of Elisha Ben Abuya were made when he was still committed to Torah observance and belief (see Tosafot, Sotah 12b). If it would appear that the books and articles of the fallen rabbi were written before he began his sinful behavior, they may be used. ... This follows something we've noticed about RHS's position in the past. He holds that pesaq involves the poseiq's full Weltenschaung. To the extent that someone should be looking to posqim from his own camp in particular. >From Kol haMevaser (a school machashav newspaper from YU), 2010, by "Staff" http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-rabbi-hershel-schachter An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter ... Who is qualified to give a pesak Halakhah (halakhic ruling)? What makes his ruling binding upon a large group of people? ... A person has to have a strong tradition in Torah logic. Common sense has its own system of logic and so does Halachah. And to know Talmudic, halachic logic, you have to be learned in all areas of Torah. A posek cannot "specialize" in one area of Halachah alone. In order to be an expert in medical Halachah, you have to know Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohoros, because everything in Halachah is interconnected and interrelated. ... Which characteristics should a person look for when choosing a personal/family posek? Is it appropriate to choose one posek for one area of Halakhah and another for a different area? Is it problematic, halakhically or otherwise, for someone to ask she'eilot to a rabbi other than the leader of his or her shul/kehillah? The Mishnah says "aseh lecha rav" - you have to pick a rav to paskn all of your she'eilos. He has to first and foremost be very knowledgeable.... Second, he has to be humble. The Gemara says that we paskn like the Beis Hillel against the Beis Shammai, because, among other reasons, the Beis Hillel were more humble than the Beis Shammai... He also has to be an honest person. Sometimes you have a rabbi who is a politician and says one thing to one person and another thing to a different person, giving everyone the answer that he wants to hear. That is obviously inappropriate. Finally, he must be a yere Shamayim (God-fearer). The Gemara talks about why the pesakim of talmidei chachamim are binding and says that it is because "sod Hashem li-yere'av" - God gives the secrets of understanding the Torah to those who fear Him. Usually, we assume that the more learned one is, the more yir'as Shamayim he has. If, however, the rabbi of my choice is very learned but seems, unfortunately, to lack yir'as Shamayim, he is not ra'ui (worthy) to receive divine assistance in figuring out what the dinim are. And one off-topic teaser: What does it mean that koah de-hetteira adif (the power of permissibility is greater) and how does one apply that rule? How does this principle accord with concepts like ha-mahamir, tavo alav berakhah (blessing should descend upon the stringent) and yere Shamayim yetse yedei sheneihem (a God-fearer tries to fulfill both)? When, if ever, is it a good idea to take upon oneself a personal humra (stricture)? (REMT already posted the same answer here years ago...) Also, there is , which RET brought to the chevrah's attention in Feb 2014 and RAM transcribed parts of. But then we were talking about that shiur's primary subject -- "Da'as Torah - What are its Halachic Parameters in Non-Halachic Issues?" 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 Wed Jun 22 00:56:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:56:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: <> If I read ir correctly this is from 2008 (not that the halachot have changed). In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. Today with the abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 09:25:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:25:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes. Now that makes sense in a neoplatonic framework, but it needs a new foundation today. This is a particular issue because in Ish HaHalacha RYBS describes these same ideas as a priori categories, and a good Kantian would attribute a priori categories, not to an objective realm, but to the structure of human thought. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 12:54:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:54:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: , <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) Kol tuv Joel rich Sent from my iPad On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: I've been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 22 14:55:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:55:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: I read it. It?s very good, and it?s what prompted me to reread Uvikashtem Misham. It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious justification. The book you cited is RYB?s exposition of the Rambam?s views, but UM is his exposition of his own views. Those are the views that require justification. DR > On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > > You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: > aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan > > This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) > Kol tuv > Joel rich > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: > >> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. >> >> Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? >> >> David Riceman >> _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Jun 22 19:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:24:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <576B485F.8020001@sero.name> On 06/22/2016 05:55 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: > It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use > neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious > justification. Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they make testable claims that can be refuted? If you mean merely that it's no longer fashionable, why should that matter? We Jews have never let fashion dictate our philosophies, and why should we? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 03:29:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:29:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20160623102930.GA24267@aishdas.org> [I also address Zev's question in this post. If yuou are only interested in that, scrol down to the line of """"""...) On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:25:01PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes : from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes... From: http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia , where I complained more of the Rambam's placing knowledge as more central to human redemption than ethic. I also noted indication that RYBS understood the Rambam differently. I simply didn't understand how, given the citations I quoted. In "Text & Texture", the RCA blog, R' Alex Sztuden suggests answers from R' JB Soloveitchik's writings to questions given on R' Soloveitchik's 1936 final exam in Jewish Philosophy. (Thereby showing that these questions were ones R' Soloveitchik considered during much of his life.) The first question, which had two parts: I.a. What is the basic idea of the "Intellectualist Theory" of the religious act? In Halakhic Mind (41-43), the Rav distinguishes between 3 different views of emotional states (and by implication, of religious states): 1. Emotions are non-cognitive. They do not express any facts or statements about the world. In a footnote, the Rav cites Hume as a typical example of this view: "Hume denied the intentional character of our emotional experiences: `A passion is an original existence...and contains not any representative quality which renders it a copy of any other existence or modification. When I am angry, I am actually possessed with the passion, and in that emotion have no more a reference to any other object, than when I am thirsty, or sick or five feet tall...'" (116, footnote 49). 2. Emotions have a cognitive component. In fact, "every intentional act is implicitly a cognitive one...by way of simple illustration, the statement `I love my country' may be broken down into three components: I. There exists a country - predication; II. This object is worthy of my love - valuation; [and] III. I love my country - consummation of the act." (43). According to the Rav, I. ("There exists a country") is a statement of fact that is in effect contained by and in the emotion. Emotions are not irrational outpourings of the heart. They make claims about the world. 3. Emotions are cognitive, but they are confused ideas. This is the Intellectualist Theory of Emotions (and religious states). "Of course, the intellectualistic school, regarding the emotional and volitional activities as modi cogitandi, had to admit some relationship between them and the objective sphere. Owing, however to the contempt that philosophers and psychologists had for the emotional act which they considered an idea confusa..." b. What are the conclusions? Criticism. The intellectualist theory correctly perceived that emotions were cognitive, but incorrectly assumed that they were inferior forms of cognition, confused ideas. For the Rav, all psychic states are intentional, and religious acts therefore contain a cognitive component, subject to elaboration, refinement and critique on its own terms. In RYBS's understanding of the Rambam, the line I am making between perfection of virtue and perfetion of knowledge simply isn't there, or is at best blurry. Which is implied by the use of the word da'as in naming "hilkhos dei'os". And yet in my blog post, I have all that counterevidence. Like the beginning of the Moreh, where he talks about the need for moral and emotional perfection being a consequence of the eitz hada'as, inferior to the prior bechitah based on emes alone, or his ranking of human perfections at the close of the Moreh, his comparing Aristo to prophets, etc... In his interview with R/Dr Alan Brill, it appears that R/Dr Lawrence Kaplan, who produced the book built from RYBS's notes on the Moreh, doesn't see RYBS's take in the Rambam aither. From or https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/rav-soloveitchik-on-the-guide-of-the-perplexed-edited-by-lawrence-kaplan Hermann Cohen's modern reading of Maimonides as ethical and Platonic was instrumental in the 20th century return to Maimonides and especially Soloveitchik's understanding of Maimonides. This lectures in this volume show how Soloveitchik both used and differed with Cohen. ... Kaplan notes that Soloveitchik's readings of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas are "highly controversial" meaning that they are less confrontations with the texts of those thinkers and more the reception and rejection as found in early 20^th century thinkers. His German Professors considered idealism as superseding the classics and Russell considered science and positivism as superseding the ancient. For these works, Maimonides was relegated to the medieval bin. Soloveitchik was going to save the great eagle. ... For Soloveitchik concern for others and responsibility for fellows as hesed is the inclusion of the other in the cosmic vision. Just as God is inclusive of the world and knows the world because it is part of Him, the Talmud scholar knows about people through his universal understanding. Kaplan points out how this is completely the opposite of Jewish thinkers such as Levinas where you actually confront the other and through the face of a real other person gains moral obligation. (I am certain that Soloveitchik pantheistic-Idealist view of ethics will elicit some comments. ) ... 2) Could you elaborate on the claim that Maimonides considers Halakhah as secondary to philosophy? How does R. Soloveitchik counter this approach? This is an old objection to Maimonides. The claim is that Maimonides follows Aristotle in maintaining that knowledge is superior to morality, both moral virtue and moral action, and, furthermore, in arguing that only intellectual knowledge possesses intrinsic value, while morality possesses only instrumental worth, serving only as a steppingstone to attaining intellectual perfection. From this it would follow that Halakhah, dealing with action, is of lesser worth than science, and that Talmud Torah, that is, the study of Halakhah, is inferior to the study of the sciences. The Rav--inaccurately by the way--quotes Graetz as stating that Maimonides in the Guide "sneered at halakhic scholarship." The Rav counters this objection by claiming that Maimonides distinguishes between two stages of ethics: pre-theoretical ethics, ethical action that precedes knowledge of the universe and God, and post-theoretical ethics, ethical action that follows upon knowledge of the universe and God. Pre-theoretical ethics is indeed inferior to theory and purely instrumental; however, post-theoretical ethics is ethics as the imitation of God's divine attributes of action of Hesed (Loving Kindness), Mishpat, (Justice), and Tzedakah (Righteousness), the ethics referred to at the very end of the Guide, and this stage of ethics constitutes the individual's highest perfection. 3) It sounds as if here Soloveitchik is just following Hermann Cohen. The Rav, as he himself admits, takes the basic distinction between pre-theoretical ethics and post- theoretical ethics from Hermann Cohen, but his understanding of the imitation of the divine attributes of action involved in post-theoretical ethics differs from Cohen. Cohen, following Kant's thought, distinguishes sharply between practical and theoretical reason, ethics and the natural order, "is" and "ought." For Cohen, God's attributes of action do not belong to the realm of causality, but to that of purpose; they are not grounded in nature, but simply serve as models for human action. What Cohen keeps apart, the Rav--and here he is, in my view and the view of others, for example, Avi Ravitzky and Dov Schwartz, more faithful to the historical Maimonides--brings together. For the Rav, the main divine attribute of action is Hesed, God's abundant lovingkindness, His "practicing beneficence toward one who has no right" to such beneficence. The prime example of Hesed, for Maimonides, is the creation of the world. This act of creation is both an ethical act, whereby God freely wills the world into existence, and an ontological act, an overflow of divine being, whereby God brings the world into being by thinking it. However, the Rav goes beyond what Maimonides states explicitly by maintaining that the deepest meaning of God's Hesed is that he not only confers existence upon the world, but continuously sustains it by including the existence of reality as whole in His order of existence. 4) Is this the basis of Soloveitchik's claim that Maimonides is a pantheist? I think he means "panentheist". But here we drift from the topic, so I am ending my too-length quote. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:24:31PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited : neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they : make testable claims that can be refuted? The law of conservation of momentum. Aristo's entire metaphysics is tied to his notion in physics that objects move when they are given impetus, and continue moving until the impetus runs out. Imetus is imparted by intellects. Intellect is what brings something min hakoach el hapo'al. Thus the Rambam's belief that the spheres -- the spinning transparent shells of quintessence in which the heavenly objects are embedded -- were intellects. Because otherwise, they would have had to stop spinning by now. And his identification of mal'akhim with Aristotle's chain of intellects, making them the metaphysical forces behind natural events and the metaphysics by which Hashem's decisions reach the world. But now we replaced the spheres with orbits, mathematical non-entities, the product of momentum and the gravity of the bodied involved. So yes, because Philosophy included Natural Philosophy, and mataphysics wend hand-in-hand with Physics to create a single picture of how the world works, Aristotilian neo-Platonism like the Rambam's philosophy did make testable claims. And those were falsified. 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 Jun 23 03:33:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: Chazon Ish Emunah & Bitochon perek 3 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Gershon via Avodah wrote: > I believe it's a Chazon Ish. > On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah < > avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > > thought of on our own. > > > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: > ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 04:45:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:45:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How would you analyze the amount of "bother" you should go to in Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? 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 Thu Jun 23 08:17:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:17:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <576BFD98.9040206@sero.name> On 06/23/2016 07:45 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in > Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to > get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the > benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether > the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 12:19:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:19:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning Message-ID: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the bracha before Krias Shema. The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved only through learning Torah. Without limud haTorah, any feelings of longing that a person may have for the Jewish way of life as practiced in the old kehillos of the towns and villages of Europe do not represent the love or fear of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Rather, they are mostly nostalgic sentiments, somewhat like that which is expressed by the song "Mein Shtetele Belz. " They have no real connection with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Such a connection can be achieved only through limud ha Torah. One cannot fear or love something that is only an idea. By learning Torah, we recognize the reality of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and, consequently, can achieve both ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem. Love and fear are really contradicting relationships. One either fears another, or loves him. Love draws one to something, and fear repels one from it. We therefore ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this tefillah that in our relationship to Him, He allow us to have both sentiments, that of our love for Him, together with our fear of violating His will. This is the meaning of v'ychad levavainu? To "fear" HaKadosh Baruch Hu does not mean that one must constantly tremble before Him. Rather, it means that one is to be afraid to violate His will. This is similar to the fear a driver has of going through a red light, which does not mean that he sits in his car and trembles. On the contrary, he can be very relaxed, while at the same time being acutely aware of the danger to his life should he go through that red light. This "fear" actually makes driving very safe. Similarly, we ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu to unify our hearts, l'yachad. to love Him, while at the same time, to make us afraid of transgressing His will. YL __________________________ BTW, I highly recommend the sefer Rav Schwab on Prayer. It gives many insights into our davening that I was most certainly not aware of. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 13:56:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:56:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning In-Reply-To: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> References: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20160623205631.GA15414@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:19:51PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments : on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the : bracha before Krias Shema. : The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved : only through learning Torah... Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The first Tablets were made by G-d, like the body of writing as explained in the Torah. The latter Tablets were made by man [Moses], as it says "Carve for yourself two stone tablets." (Exodus 34:1) Tablets are things which cause standing and existence, that it's not "letters fluttering in the air." Since they were made by Hashem, they would stand eternally. But the second ones, which were man-made, only exist subject to conditions and constraints. The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was a symbol and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the Torah [since]. Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone Tablets", so too it is advice for all who receive the Torah. Each must prepare Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word of Hashem. According to his readiness in preparing the Tablets, so will be his ability to receive. If in the beginning or even any time after that his Tablets are ruined, then his Torah will not remain. This removes much of Moses' fear, because according to the value and greatness of the person in Awe/Fear of Hashem and in middos, which are the Tablet of his heart, this will be the measure by which heaven will give him acquisition of Torah. And if he falls from his level, by that amount he will forget his Torah, just as our sages said of a number of things that cause Torah to be forgotten. About this great concept our sages told us to explain the text at the conclusion of the Torah, "and all the great Awe Inspiring acts which Moses wrought before the eyes of all of Israel." (Devarim 34:12, the closing words of the Torah) This is in a long Litvisher tradition that yir'as Shamayim is a precondition t being able to learn. Not, as Rav Schwap is quoted here, a consequence. Although a positive feedback cycle is certainly a possibility. For example, from Nefesh haChaim 4:5: According to the vast arrangement of the silo of yir'ah that the person prepared for himself, it is through that arrangement that the grain of Torah will be able to enter and be protected within him, according to how much he strengthened his silo. It is [like] a father who divides grain for his sons. He divides and gives each one a measure of grain to match what the son's silo can hold, which he [the son] prepared beforehand. For even if the father wishes and his hand is open to give him more, the son cannot receive more since his silo is not big enough to hold more. So too the father cannot now give him more. And if the son did not prepare even a small silo, then also the father can not give him anything at all for he has no guarded place where it will remain with him. So too Hashem, may His name be blessed: His "Hand" is open, as it were, to constantly bestow every person according to his reward with much wisdom and extra understanding when it will be preserved by them and will be tied onto the slate of their hearts. Everything [is given] according to the volume of one's "silo." And if a person does not prepare even a small silo, which is that he does not, heaven forbid, have within him any yir'ah whatsoever for Him, may He be blessed, so too He, may He be blessed, will not bestow any wisdom at all, since it will not be preserved by him. For his Torah would become disgusting, heaven forbid, as our Rabbis, whose memories are a blessing, said. It is about this that the verse says, "the beginning of wisdom is yir'as Hashem," (Tehillim 111). This relates directly to another post of yours of quotes from RSoP. "Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah", thread at http://j.mp/28Q172y (or http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=R#RAV%20SHIMON%20SCHWAB%20ON%20WOMEN%20LEARNING%20TORAH ) In Feb you wrote: > The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. ... > A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim > because of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is > not the object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher > or scientist, but Torah is not philosophy or science. Torah is the way > Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us. > Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man, > can it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his yiras > Shamayim. Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud Torah, she > cannot utilize it as a means to increase her many ways of connection > to Hashem. And at some point I wrote: > I realize I do not have clarity on what RSS is referring to when he says > "yir'as Shamayim". > To the Ramchal is means by default yir'as hacheit, which in turn means > fear of doing the wrong thing because it's against His Will. (In contrast > to yir'as ha'onesh, fear of the sin's punishment, which is not real > yir'as Shamayim.) According to the Ramchal, also included in yir'ah is > yir'as haromemus. But those are all feelings. How could we make a blanket > statement ike "women do not learn to fear sinning or how awe-inspiring > G-d is by learning Torah"? (Whereas men can, or in True Scotsman style: > If a man didn't gain yir'as Shamayim, it wasn't *really* learning.) > So it seems to me RSS is speaking about something more specific. Perhaps > a relationship with ol mitzvos, which is why it is only generated by > a metzuvah ve'oseh performance. But even that would be iffy, because a > person can learn an emotional stance by imagining what it would be like > if... So that by learning, if the woman could empathetically imagine > what it would be like to be a man and compelled to learn as a mitzvah > in itself, wouldn't she still learn the yir'ah behind ol mitzvos? Now, that theory too has to be scrubbed. It looks like RSS is speakiong very speicifcally about fulfilling an obligation of talmud Torah. It's not a function of obligation in general (pg 300) nor of talmd Torah without the chiyuv (pg 274). So I REALLY have no clarity. 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 Fri Jun 24 02:14:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36431880-c73a-a5c8-e53d-25218ec972ef@zahav.net.il> There is also an ideological element to the reduced numbers. Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook strongly pressured the DL schools to not hire chareidi teachers (for obvious reasons). Ben On 6/22/2016 9:56 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. > Today with the > abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a > DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:17:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in Monsey. Ben On 6/23/2016 1:45 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in Eretz > Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get > birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit > of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah > is on the cohanim alone? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:01:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birkhat cohanim Message-ID: <> Certainly not a mitzvah in the formal sense of the word. However Rav Melamed explains that the chazzan (or someone in the congregation) calls out "cohanim" to signify that we wish to accept the blessing and only then can the cohanim begin see http://ph.yhb.org.il/02-20-07/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 05:20:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:20:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. > Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in > Monsey. > Ben The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. [Email #2. -micha] >> On 06/23/2016 07:45 Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? > Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > Zev The Haflaah among others. Listen here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/858947 Rabbi Ezra Schwartz-Duchening for non kohanim Kol tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 06:46:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576D399C.3070707@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 05:17 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. But only those who are in front of them, not those behind them. So I suppose any kohen, on any day, is only blessing half of Am Yisrael. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:12:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6deabf95-1f8d-0240-e958-c2518f9d8be0@zahav.net.il> On 6/24/2016 2:20 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one > stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. Because the people behind the cohenim are able to walk a couple of feet and choose not to whereas anyone else is considered anoos and therefore they are included in the bracha. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:17:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:17:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: >> How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in >> Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to >> get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the >> benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? >Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the kohanim. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:12:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 01:17 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >>Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > > The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer > Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the > kohanim. Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:10:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:10:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160624181048.GA19921@aishdas.org> In AhS yomi today, YD 240:34, RYME discusses the issur of listening to a parent who tells you to violate the din. One cannot discuss achei dokheh lav because the pasuq excludes such commands from a parent's authority. He ends: And memela, also in an issur derabbanan it is against the Torah. For HQBH commanded not to veer from anything the chakhamim say. So, those who say lo sasur is only an asmakhta for obeying a mitzvah derabbanan, do they say kibud av does include an order to violate a lave derabbanan? Or do they have a different sevara? :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:15:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160624181511.GB19921@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:54:09PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The : Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai : that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva See also AhS se'if 39, who says the same, but in more detail. The Lekhem Mishnah lmits the Machloqes to while the father is alive, saying that even the Rambam does not require KaVA of an evil parent fter their petirah. The Kesef Limits it to mishel ha'av, the son of an evil parent is not chayav lehachzir lo mishelo. And he believes Rashi explains the gemara in a manner consistent with the Tur's position. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:18:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev for a berakhah? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:22:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:22:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? > : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say > : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. > > Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev > for a berakhah? Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for women according to the BeHaG? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 01:54:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:54:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: R' Zev Sero asked: "Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed?" The Biur Halacha at the beginning of Siman 128 quotes from the Sefer Charedim that there is a mitzva on the tzibur to be blessed by the kohanim. The Haflaah in Kesubos 24b uses this Charedim to explain why it is prohibited for a non-Kohen to go up to duchen, He says that if a Yisrael goes up to duchess he is being mevatel his mitzva of receiving the beracha. See also the Minchas Chinuch 378 who quotes this Charedim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 25 11:05:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:05:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > explanation of the Rambam. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not > the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a > safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important . R. Avraham pointed out that problem of the authority of the rabbis is a basic problem and not just a difficulty with a Rambam and Ramban. The better the source of their authority the more it looks like a de-oraisa. The more one goes away from a de-oraisa the weaker their authority. His major answer is that every time there is a dichotomy the only way out is to find a third middle path. In general this replaces a binary decision by a continuum path. His standard example is the definition of bald. Someone who has one hair is obviously bald. It is also obvious that adding one hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. The conclusion by induction is that every one is bald. The answer to the riddle that the dichotomy of bald not-bald is not correct. Adding one more hair makes someone less bald. It is a continuum and not a binary. R Avraham (RMA) brought the Nesivos that also (or more correctly first) states that there are two types of violating a derabbanan. One is to rebel against the concept of derabbanan and that is lo tasur according to the Rambam (he also hinted that in the next shiur the Ramban will agree with the Rambam). OTOH if one violates the rabbanan rule "le-teavon" then it is a strictly rabbinical rule. Hence, Nesivot concludes that if one one violates a rabbanan "be-shogeg" one does not need kaparah. In essence he has done nothing wrong. The lo-tasur is only for rebellion and he has not rebelled. Note that practically there can't be rebellion and safek. In modern terms the netivot says that all rabbanan decrees are gavra and not cheftza. Eating meat and milk (cooked together) the mixture is prohibited. Eating chicken and milk cooked together there is nothing wrong with the mixture. It is rebelling against the chachamim to eat it on purpose (lo tasur) or rabbinic if eaten le-teavon. RMA pointed out that this again comes back to the problem of why to listen to the rabbis Note that the Rogachover holds that every mitzvat aseh is only gavra and not cheftza A second explanation was from the Rogatchover: The prohibition from the Torah only demands that we accept the authority of the rabbis. If someone accepts that the rabbis can make decrees but decides that nevertheless he can't/won't listen then there is no Torah prohibition. This leaves open the question how is it possible that one can accept the authority of the rabbis but still disagree with them. It seems to bring back the original question of what good is their authority if one need not listen, To explain this RMA brought a Tzlach. The Nodah BeYehuda states that sevara yields a de-oraisa only if their is a connecting pasuk. Thus killing someone to save oneself is a deoraisa based on sevara (everyones blood is equal). However when sevara creates a new category then it is only derabbanan. The classic example is berachot - eating without a bracha is LIKE stealing. So the rabbis based on this sevara required berachot. However, it is only a derabbanan since one is not actually stealing. (answers a question of the Pnei Yehoshua). Similarly for something to be a Torah law there has to be both a commandment and a content. In order for something to be a de-oraisa it needs BOTH a source and content. So violating shabbat is one prohibition even though there are many pesukim since the content is the same. OTOH "lav she-be-chlalot" has only one pasuk but many contents and so also there is no punishment. According to Rambam anything no explicit in the Torah has no punishment when learned from derashot. So the prohibition of "Lo Tasur" gives a generalization that there is a commandment to listen to the rabbis. The rabbis applied to this to various cases but this is no longer explicit in the pasuk and so no longer a de-oraisa. This is different than "lifne iver" where giving bad advice is an example of the pasuk and so from the Torah. In summary there are 3 types of derashot 1) examples not explicit in the pasuk - clasical example is neder. The Torah says one can't violate one's neder. Hoever the individual person decides the specific application 2) Asmachta (some meforshim) - just a help to memory. Ritva argues that some asmachtot are really the intention of the pasuk. However since it is only hinted it is a rabbanan and not a deoraisa i.e. there is content but no commandment. 3) Things learned indirectly from the pasuk there is a sevara (content) but no commandment. Finally RMA argues that finding a third/middle path is the only way out and so Ramban has to agree with Rambam. The arguments are more misunderstandings and semantics. Another example is Avelut. Rambam states explicitly that ivisiting the avel or making the kallah happy rabbinic. He the quotes the pasuk of "ve-ahavta le-reacha komecha" . This eems to be self-contradictory. The answer is the same as for "Lo Tasur". There is content but no explicit commandment and so it is rabbinic even though hinted in the pasuk. Someone who "loves" (not romantic) the Kallah but doesnt make her happy fulfills the Torah obligation but not the rabbinic one. Someone who makes her happy but doent "love" her fulfils the rabbinic command but not the Torah obligation. RMA then hinted to a wider application to general philosophical questions where one has observations and generalizations. How is it possible to generate a physical law (eg Maxwell's equations) when all we have are a finite number of observations. In other words are mathematical descriptions of nature inherent in nature or man-made. De-raisa is like observations we only have what is explicit. Derabbanan are generalizations. In both cases we need to find a middle/continuum path Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 08:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev >> for a berakhah? > Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? > In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for > women according to the BeHaG? In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: <576FFEA2.1070206@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 11:51 AM, elazar teitz wrote: > In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf > person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of > noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer > Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the > blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. Good distinction. Even awareness is presumably not necessary, since we bring babies to be blessed. But is this distinction really relevant to the question of whether to make a bracha? Where do we see that a bracha depends on a chiyuv to hear rather than merely to be present? Further question: is a bracha said on attending hakhel? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:13:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:13:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: <<< According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? >>> As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the latter than the former. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:34:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and then continues on the cruise. We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many days -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:32:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:32:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57709038.8010307@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:34 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for > someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every > day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a > difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and > then continues on the cruise. > > We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips > on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of > the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many > days How much more so. If one says it (without shem umalchus) every morning of the journey, even at a hotel where one might be staying for a day or two to rest, how much more so must one say it (again without shem umalchus) every morning if one is actually travelling at that very moment. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:30:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:30:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57708FB9.2050601@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:13 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be > blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: >> According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? > As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one > does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. > Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the > recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. > How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the > kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Our case is different, because once the cohen has answered the call and gone up to the duchan he can't change his mind. He's now obligated to bless. And if he hasn't done it yet that day then he has to do it anyway. > Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha > only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel > and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely > being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is > indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the > latter than the former. But we *do* have an obligation to say a bracha, which we are yotzei by listening to the baal tokeia's or baal korei's; if he has already been yotzei himself then he does *not* say the bracha again, and one of the listeners says it for everyone. Here, however, we are not yotzei with the cohanim's bracha, since it doesn't apply to us; we are not sanctified with Aharon's kedusha, and we were not commanded to bless but (according to this opinion) to be blessed. So if we're not yotzei their bracha why don't we say our own (or have the chazan say it for us)? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 02:10:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:10:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: In my original post I was too short. Therefore I will expand a little about tefillat haderech and my question 1) Rashi holds that tefillat haderech (THD) is requesting permission from Hashem and so can only be said within the first parsah. Bahag holds that THD is asking for protection and so can be said anytime up to a parsah before the end of the trip. Rosh and SA pasken like Behag. Rambam doesn't mention THD and meforshim try and explain why 2) Ashkenazim measure parsah as a distance (about 4km) even when using a car or plane. ROY translated parsah to a time of 72 minutes. 3) Kolbo says that one says THD only once a day even if one made a stop during the day (quoted in SA). Hence, MB says that if one is touring and stops every night in a hotel one says THD every morning with a bracha. Yalkut Yosef says that if one travels 40 minutes going to work and 40 minutes back they don't combine and one says THS without a bracha 4) Radvaz talks about an extended trip and says that even if one is not stopping in a "yishuv" and if if one is travelling all night he says THD every day but a bracha only on the first day. Pri Chadash disagrees says that one says THD only on the first day even if it is an extended trip MB says that if one makes a short stop then one should say THD the next morning without a bracha 5) As an aside RSZA paskens that one does not say THD traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as there are cities all along the way. Yalkut Yosef disagrees. RSZA also says that on a plane one should say THD shortly after the plane leaves the ground My question concerned travelling on a boat either several day journey without stops across the Atlantic or else a cruise with many stops in ports. According to the Pri Chadash one certainly doesn't say THD after the first day. However, even according to the Radvaz one might argue that there is no need to say THD after the first day since one always stays on the boat day and night and it is different than a caravan. Of course one can always say THD without a bracha but the question is whether one needs to. I have no surveys but in my limited experience people do not say THD every day on a cruise even without a bracha -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 06:17:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei halachot in monetary matters Message-ID: A new web site exists collecting piskei halachot in financial matters especially from eretz chemda courts in Israel currently 336 rulings with a search engine psakim.org -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 07:39:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:39:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Buying Sliced Watermelon Message-ID: <1467038393622.33144@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. I am preparing a picnic. Can I buy sliced watermelon from the supermarket? A. The Shach (YD 96:3) cites a concern that a knife often contains a fatty residue even after it has been washed or wiped with a rag. Therefore, if a non-kosher knife was used to cut kosher food, some of the residue on the knife would transfer to the food. Rama (96:1, 4) writes that with regards to fruit, we can assume that the manufacturer or processor has dedicated utensils. Even if the knife is not dedicated to cutting fruit, however, if large quantities of fruit are being cut or sliced, we can assume that whatever non-kosher residue was on the knife was removed when cutting the first few fruit, which are batel (nullified) in the majority of other fruit. One may, therefore, purchase cut watermelon in a supermarket or in a fruit store. The market would likely have dedicated utensils and in any event it is preparing large quantities of fruit. In a non-kosher restaurant or catered event, however, the fruit would not be permitted because the knives very likely are not dedicated and food preparation switches from one product to the next. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 13:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:55:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim Message-ID: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R' Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in "Ve ha-ish Moshe Anav m'od" from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Thanks, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 19:28:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim In-Reply-To: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> References: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> Message-ID: <5771E0DF.8050101@sero.name> On 06/27/2016 04:55 PM, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R? > Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. > > In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in ?Ve > ha-ish Moshe Anav m?od? from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Here you go: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19165&pgnum=207 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 28 03:03:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:03:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is dirt clean? Message-ID: If a Jew wants to eat bread, halacha requires a certain form of hand-washing, but that has nothing to do with this thread. There are also certain situations where halacha recognizes a certain *spiritual* uncleanliness, and requires a certain hand-washing to remedy it. Most (all?) of these situations are listed in S"A O"C 4:18, and include things like getting up from bed, exiting a bathroom, removing one's shoes, and others. It is noteworthy that this se'if begins with the words "These things require washing with water", as if to suggest that washing with other things would not be effective. Indeed, the Mishne Brurah #39 comments on the word "with water": > However, for tefilah - and certainly for learning Torah - > a mere cleaning is enough for any of these cases, as > noted below in se'if 22, in the case of one who gets up > from bed. And this is certainly [acceptable] if there is > no [water available]. However, removing the Ruach Raah > requires specifically water. ... But this thread isn't about those situations either. I am mentioning it only in order to clearly establish that there is yet another category of situations, namely the ones that the MB pointed to as being in Se'if 22. The Mechaber wrote there (S"A O"C 4:22): > If one has no water, he should wipe his hands on a > pebble or dirt or anything that cleans, and say the > bracha 'Al Nekiyus Yadayim'. This [procedure] is > effective for tefilah, but not to remove the ruach > raah which is on [the hands]. The Mechaber's phrase "anything that cleans", and his wording for the bracha in such cases, not to mention his comment about ruach raah at the end -- All these things make it abundantly clear that we are talking about *physical* cleanliness, as opposed to other kinds of cleanliness. And the Mechaber writes similarly in O"C 92:4, that prior to Tefilah, > One must wash his hands with water if he has some, and > if he doesn't have any [the Mechaber explains how far > one must go to obtain water]. But if he is worried that > he will pass the time limit for Tefilah, then he should > clean his hands with a pebble or dirt or anything that > cleans. My question is simple: Why is dirt in the category of "things which clean"? It seems to me that if I would rub my hands with dirt they would (almost always) be even dirtier afterwards than before. The only answer I can think of is that halacha considers dirt to be clean. Is it possible that the *only* uncleanliness that prohibits tefila are the things listed in OC 4:21 - touching covered parts of one's body, etc. (and perhaps other specific listings elsewhere) Here's a practical situation. Suppose someone is at work, and it is close to Mincha time. So he goes to the bathroom, exits, and does the best washing you can imagine, with whatever chumros you like. Then he realizes he has a bit more time until mincha, so he decides to go back to work, but with constant attention to being very careful not to scratch his head, or touch under his shirt, or any of the things that would require him to wash again before mincha. But his job is a butcher, and he will get his hands bloody. Or he is a painter or printer, and he'll get paint or ink on his hands. Or he is a farmer or construction worker, and he'll get actual earth on his hands. And now it is time for mincha. Are his hands halachically clean or dirty? If you tell me that they are dirty, how does it help to wipe his hands in the dirt? I have more questions on this topic, but I hope this will get the ball rolling. Thank you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:32:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rishon vs Acharon and other kelalei pesak Message-ID: <20160629193257.GA12798@aishdas.org> There are some interesting se'ifim toward the end of AhS YD 242 that touch on a number of our perennial topics. Se'ifin 58-62 discuss the din of whether a rav can pasqen on something that someone else already pasqened on, and if so, is a sho'el allowed to ask the second rav the self-same question. In 59 he opines (nir'eh LAD) that the Raavad, Ramban, Rashba, Rosh and Ran (AZ 7) all say the issue is not the kavod of the first talmid chakham, but because once he prohibits, chal alei chatichah de'isura [CACD]. Therefore, if the first TC made an error in a zil qeri bei rav matter, it's like someone who avoids a piece of shuman thinking it's cheilev, and there is no CACD. However, ther 2nd TC *may* say "I think it's allowed, but I will not permit something R' XYZ already prohibited." If a talmid chakham was matir and no one acted on it, another TC can be machmir. But if it was acted upon, he can't. I do not see an explanation why. Later we learn that a TC of an obviously higher caliber, or a moreh de'asra in his own town, can indeed overrule an earlier TC's ruling. Another interesting topic is 35 -- if acharonim disagree with a rishon whose opinion was available in their day, we follow the acharonim. If the rishon was not (eg Me'iri), we say that perhaps the acharonim would have ruledd differently had they seen it. But you cznnot rule against a ga'on. Yeish omerim you never hold like acharonim against rishonim, but yesh lehisyasheiv bazeh. However, if the rishon find one position compelling (yakhol lehachira) he may pasqen as he sees (except against geonim). 36: Just as it is assur to permit the prohibited, so too it is assur to prohibit the permitted. Even if there is no hefseid, or the item is owned by a non-Jew. However, safeiq and being chosheish for the opinoin of many rishonim is sufficient motive . According to the Shakh this is because "shelo ya'asu agudos agudos." In general the AhS refers to the Shakh's qunetrus on kelalei hapesaq a lot. Even though on a couple of things he holds like the Rama over the Shakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:46:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yanik Message-ID: <20160629194624.GA12037@aishdas.org> AhS YD 244 is about vehadarta penei zaqein -- both someone chronologically old (as long as he is not a rasha or an am ha'aretz who therefore ends up non-observant by ignorance), and a talmid chakham. In se'if 3 he says that a zaqein for the sake of this mitzvah would even include a TC who is a yaniq. Not a qatan. So what's a yaniq? Someone 17 or younger. Are there any mitzvos for which 17 yrs old is a significant age? The ony reference I could dream up is R' Elazar ben Azaria, who was 17, was supposed to be getting kavod (being nasi), and turned gray (keben shiv'im shanah) overnight. Problem is, he was 18 according to the Bavli; it's the Yerushalmi who has him becoming nasi at 16, and saying this quote at 17. And of cvourse the bigger problem is that there is no reason to turn the age REbA happened to be into a cutoff line. Can anyone think of something? 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 Thu Jun 30 02:10:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:10:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] meanings Message-ID: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or should you pick one? 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 Thu Jun 30 03:51:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:51:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma > before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities > with different meanings. (By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or > should you pick one? Another example in Hallel: ze hayom `asa Hashem, nagila venismha bo (is "bo" hayom or Hashem? Most translations seem to go for "hayom", but "veyyismehu becha Yisrael" in the kedushat hayom of 18 for regalim fits with "bo" meaning Hashem) My humble opinion: for pesukim, if there are two possibilities it's not by chance, and mikra lo yotze mipeshuto -- including all its peshatim. For tefilla, I'm not so sure, but I think you should probably pick one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:13:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:10:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma : before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities : with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off : or should you pick one? As per my answer to you at this week's wonderful Audio Roundup , I believe you *should* switch off. Poets make a point of layering on multiple meanings when they wish to convey a picture using al of them. I believe the point of ambiguity in tefillah is just so that you can emphasize different shades of meaning depending on what you want to way this particular time. (I accept tips for plugging a member's web site via Paypal. Contact me off-list. No, seriously, the biggest problem with RJR's Audio Roundup over on TM is that he tempts you with too many good shiurim for just one week of listening time.) There is a basic grammatical problem, two nouns, both the object of the sentence, with nothing indicating which is the primary object, which the secondary, nor anything connecting them into a single phrase that could be one object. Thanks to previous Avodah discussions, I have a list of ways to read "umasbia lekhol chai ratzon": - Pashut peshat [check your typical siddur translation] would be as though the pasuq read "umasbia' ritzon kol chai" -- leaving every desire satisfied. (Or maybe "umasbia lekhol chai es tetzono".) RYGB disliked this peshat because it's experimentally false. Many people die with unfulfilled desires. - Rav Schwab says that everyone is dependent on "yennem's" liking him for his parnassa.... Hashem provides this needed "ratzon". (RGD) RMPoppers suggests [on Mesorah] that "ratzon" was the very quality that HQBH is bequeathing, IIRC, something akin to granting "chein". - [T]he Malbim's pshat - Ratzon Hashem. (RYGB) [W]ould would work better if the pasuq read "... umasbia' lechol chei beratzon" .(me) - RAYK points out that without ratzon, goals and purposes for a person to persue, life is empty. So he too says that Hashem bestows ratzon -- but means it in the sense of having desire, not being desired/desirable. Hashem does us a tovah by giving us retzonos to pursue. Someone else noted the parallel in pereq 104:27-28 as an argument for what I called "pashut peshat": > Kulam alecha yesaberun / Eynai kol alecha yesabeiru > Lases ochlam b'ito / V'atah nosein lahem achlam b'ito > Titein lahem yilkotun. > Tiftach yadcha / Poseach es yadech > yisbe'un tov. / U'masbiya l'kol chay ratzon. > The whole string of preceding psukim in 104 refer to G-d's ability to > sustain the world in a very real and material way, not abstractions like > bestowing "razton". But I think that David haMelekh created the obscure phrasing because the real answer is "(E) All of the above". I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel beratzon..." works. When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase vehasheiv: - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, - ve'ishei Yisrael. Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to restore the BHMQ bfirst? Or do we pun on "ishei Yisrael" pretending it means "anshei Yisrael" but in a unique conjugation? But the question is how to find meaning in a pre-existing text under a new circumstance. Not multiuple layers of original intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:44:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:44:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9CWhenever_you_find_yourself_on_the_sid?= =?utf-8?q?e_of_the_majority=2C_it_is_time_to_reform_=28or_pause_and_refle?= =?utf-8?b?Y3QpLuKAnSAg4oCVIE1hcmsgVHdhaW4=?= Message-ID: We all know the minority report by Joshua and Caleb showers its praises on the land and counsels b?nai Yisroel to go up to it. The ten other ?spies? give a very negative report against the land and can see only giants, fortified cities and difficulties they feel are insurmountable. These ten men of small stature conclude their report with the following: ?And there we saw the giants (nephilim), the sons of the giant (Anak), from among the giants; And we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes and so we were in their sight. (Bamidbar 13:33). The Midrash states that at these words, God said: ?I have no objection to your saying, ?We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes,? but it is inappropriate if you say, ?and so were were in their sight.? How do you know how you appeared to them? How do you know if you did not appear to them to be angels?? (Midrash Bamidar Rabbah, XVL, II). This is a profound psychological insight. How many times we feel insignificant and think everyone else looks at us the same. Just because you feel inferior doesn?t mean you are. That?s the meaning of ?You?re your own worst enemy." Shabbat shalom. ri From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 12:50:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <577577ED.2090001@sero.name> On 06/30/2016 02:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. > Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to > say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) > > In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel > beratzon..." works. > > When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in > a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the > period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase > vehasheiv: > - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, > - ve'ishei Yisrael. > Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept > the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to > restore the BHMQ bfirst? I don't see the problem, or the "repurposing". The phrase means exactly what it always meant. The only change the bracha needed to adapt it to the new reality was the addition of a new request, to restore the avodah, before the request to accept our korbanos and tefillos. Once the new request is fulfilled, the next one won't be a problem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 06:57:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 09:57:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Navigating Kitchen Appliance Technology Message-ID: <20160401135835.593F217FAB8@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 07:39:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> Message-ID: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. -- 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 Fri Apr 1 10:44:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:44:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401174415.GA2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:28:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I think the real difference between the two cases is how deeply one must : dig to see the wires and the switches: In the floor mat all you'd need, I : guess, is to cut through a centimeter or two of rubber to see the wires, : while the motion detector would need a microscope and an engineering degree : just to understand what you're looking at. But even with the mat, no one : can actually see the electricity move simply as a result of standing on it. I think those two are different in kind. In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Let's say there was an unlit room at the end of a long hall, so there was no way to light it without chilul Shabbos. Would it be mutar to write in such a room? Or is writing assur, regardless of the situation? If a bug is born of eggs that are large enough to be visible, but happen to be hidden within uncut meat, is the maggot kosher? In the motion detector (or the fitbit), the change is not detectible by an unaided human, regardless of the situation. People cannot see the microscopic. (And yes, I realize that claim is true by definition of the word "microscopic"). The change is outside the realm of unaided human senses in principle, not in situation. If one looks through water through a microscope and finds water bears and other micrscopic bugs in it, does that water become treif? Is all tap water or distilled water in bottles that were open too long treif because one in theory would find such things in most water? (For a moment there I thought about mayim she-lanu, but then realized this would be a much more restrictive issur than that.) : There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, : but in my experience this idea is very new. Not even ten years old perhaps. Rav Dovid Lifshitz spoke about halakhah in general ignoring the microscopic some time between Sep 1984 and Jun 1986. The permissability of killing bugs that have no piryah verivyah on Shabbos (or of eating them) is miSinai. Or at least, as old as some pre-Chazal rav pasqened the deOraisa that way, since Chazal take it for granted. The real motive for saying halakhah only applies to the sensible is to find a new explanation for an old heter to avoid saying a din deOraisa is in error, even though the old explanation (abiogensis of these insects) was shown to be empirically false. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 10:57:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> References: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160401175728.GC2751@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 02:06:19AM -0400, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote: : And here's the link to the source sheet: : http://cdn.yutorah.org/materials/Source Sheet-510279.pdf RMT's discussion is of ex rays, and really focuses on whether the developing is koseiv. (Also, mesayeia, how often is it really needed, etc...) If anything, I would read him as assuming that the invisiable change to the film is mutar. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 11:18:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:18:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401181840.GD2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:01PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : Seems similar to an automatic watch, except for there being post-Shabbos : utility to the recorded unintentional-exercise-on-Shabbos data. Also, the automatic watch, becoause it is never allowed to run down, is never actually broken to need repairs. What melakhah would be involved, even if the winding were observable? (And I think in principle it is... one can see the spring and how tight it is.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 15:54:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:54:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: I wrote: > ... But even with the mat, no one can actually see the electricity > move simply as a result of standing on it. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think those two are different in kind. > > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible hypothetically, albeit not situationally? If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I missing something here? Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." I will concede that he clearly has some wiggle room there, and he doesn't specify why he is unsure, but I never thought that the invisibility of the electrons was an issue, since their power is so evident. Could it be that the tide has turned, and more poskim are looking at the electrons? I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 2 21:33:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, but in my experience this idea is very new. .... Let's say that there is a posek who rules leniently on these devices, and he bases his ruling on this principle that tiny things can be ignored. What precedent is there? What lenient rulings existed 25 or 50 years ago, based on that same principle? Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice and didn't mean to kill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:34:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: This is many ways similar to the use of electronic water meters on shabbos. The meter has no external display that changes and all it does on Shabbos is record how much water you are using. The Charedi poskim in israel have all assumed that it is absolutely forbidden. You can see the kol korehs here: http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2012/09/using-electronic-water-meters-on-shabbos.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:41:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I realise that I was a bit terse in my original question so I would like to expand on the halachic questions. After talking to 2 expert sofrim the story is as follows. There are 2 halachic problems with black on white (traditional retzuos): 1. Since the black is just painted on, the paint peels off leaving a part (even small) of the retzua that is not black. The MB is machmir that this will pasul the retzua 2. The KSA has a chumra that the sides of the retzuos should be black as well. The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the above 2 issues. 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't peel off or crack, it stays black 2. The sides are black as well. The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the gedolim today use black on black retzuos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 07:38:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 10:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57012B00.10604@sero.name> Another advantage of black-on-black: Al pi din only the loop that holds the bayis to your arm or head has to be top-side-out. The rest of the retzuah that goes around your arm or that hangs down past the kesher can face any way. But if you have the white showing, inevitably someone will come up to you tell you to turn it around or just turn it around themselves. With black-on-black this won't happen. -- 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 Sun Apr 3 13:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 22:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> References: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> Message-ID: <57017B0A.4040206@zahav.net.il> This could be different because even if you walk on grass there is no guarantee that you're going to kill anything. Whereas in today's digital world, you walk in various cities, you're going to activate some circuits somewhere. Ben On 4/3/2016 6:33 AM, via Avodah wrote: > I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always > been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you > might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice > and didn't mean to kill. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 13:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:02:27 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> References: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Message-ID: Date: Fri 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 EDT From: Zev Sero > Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? > Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? > If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. Oros Eilim Me'adamim are explained by the Yerushalmi to mean rams hit - whilst living - so as to produce bruising, which subsequently produced the 'red' skins, on being flayed.Rashi (ad loc.) appears to concede with that explanation.Lulei d'midtofino, I would suggest the redness was due to a tannery process, much as the old Yemenite Sifrei Torah were reddish [brown].(Note: Me'adamim is most probably a brownish red, as in Poroh Adumoh.) Dovid Rubin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 10:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar Message-ID: <20160403170927.74F6617FAFA@nexus.stevens.edu> Just like most other Bar Mitzvah bochurim, my son Mordechai Zev started donning his Tefillin a while before his actual Bar Mitzvah this past Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini, as part of his preparations. Yet, unlike most others who start donning Tefillin two or three months, or more commonly, one month prior to the actual 13th birthday, my son started wearing Tefillin 31 days before his Bar Mitzvah, an opinion not explicitly found in any early halachic codex. But to understand why, some background about Double Adars is in order... To understand why, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos! Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 03:17:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy Message-ID: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> By Dr Lawrence Fishman or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: In many academic circles, previous to the excavation of Khirbet Qeiyafa and its publication, scholars denied the entire notion of a centralized Jewish polity in the late 11th-early 9th centuries BCE. Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as some of the discoveries in ancient Jerusalem have shown that this view should be rejected.... Because of the [Bible's] presentation of [the history of this period] in quasi-mythic terms, it cannot be taken literally by historians. Yet properly evaluated it can and should contribute in broad outlines to the construction of a historical picture of our period.... The early kings of Israel rose to political power beginning with a limited territorial base later supplemented by military conquest. Saul's territory was that of the tribe of Benjamin. His son, Ishbaal (this name appears on an inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa), who ruled for a very brief period..., also claimed to rule over Ephraim, Gilead, the Jezreel [Valley], and Asher. David first ruled in the territory of Judah. His capital was in Hebron in the Judean Hills for seven years until he moved it to Jerusalem. The Bible attests to his beginning as a chieftain and traces the evolution and machinations that led to his kingship.... As David gained power and expanded from his Judean base, he ruled parts of what would later be considered Israel.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 04:13:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:13:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy In-Reply-To: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> References: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57039DBE.4010907@starways.net> Aside from his name being Schiffman, and not Fishman, I have to disagree with his identifications. The Iron II remains he's talking about are not from the United Monarchy. Rather, they are from the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement. And in fact, they *match* the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement, but do not in any way match the United Monarchy, which is why he had to give the caveat that: /The elimination of these more extreme, minimalist views of the period of the United Monarchy does not give us an excuse to adopt a simplistic or fundamentalist reading of the biblical historical accounts and the archaeological evidence. Rather, it calls upon us to ask how, when taken together, the age-old historical traditions of the Jewish people can be melded with archaeological evidence from the Land of Israel and evidence from surrounding cultures in the ancient Near East. Our challenge, therefore, is not to ask whether or not biblical accounts and archaeological evidence are true or not, but rather how, when taken together, the evidence available to us can allow us to reconstruct a sense of what the society was like that produced the biblical traditions that we have received.// / This is a roundabout way of saying that the remains don't match the biblical narrative, but we can, if we try really hard, kinda see how the remains were later enlarged into the biblical fantasy. He also says: /In the monarchic period a uniformity of architectural forms throughout Judah/Israel has been discovered... Architecturally the public city gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor are strikingly similar: the walls are very thick and feature casemates where people lived or that were used for storage... The uniformity of the features of the great public buildings in these cities suggests a royal administration./ Substituting Iron II for the incorrect "monarchic period", this is understandable, since the uniform architecture was the result of local governors from the same Assyrian empire. But of course, the architecture of Solomon was on a scale far above that of the Iron II buildings. Interestingly enough, the cities where these uniform city gates were found are, each of them, in the regional capitols of areas conquered by Assyria. He leaves off Lachish, which has the same gates, and which was the Assyrian capitol of their province of Judea in the time between their conquest of all Judea other than Jerusalem and their withdrawal after they were struck down before the gates of Jerusalem. Lisa On 4/5/2016 1:17 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > By Dr Lawrence Fishman > > or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 14:57:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:57:10 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 From: Marty Bluke via Avodah ... > The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are > made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time > and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an > additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the > above 2 issues. > 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't > peel off or crack, it stays black > 2. The sides are black as well. > The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the > traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't > the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the > gedolim today use black on black retzuos This is not so simple. It might be argued that the 'optional' addition of a glossy side is not so optional. Rashi says, the outside of the retsuos need to be the 'noy' [beauty]. In the old manner of painting - and not soaking - the retsuos, this was quite simple. The painted side represented the noy. Soaking the skins does not give a pleasant finished article. Thus, i would argue, the addition of a glossy side is imperative. A point that was missed is the opinion of the Arizal, that the retsuos of shel rosh should be black on both sides. (However, from previous argument it would appear that might entail a nice finish on both sides.) The objection that this new process is a chiddush is somewhat faulty. I possess retsuos of over 200 years. It is clear that the original method of manufacture was very different 200 years ago. The entire skin was not treated. Rather, strips were cut off and then painted. This enabled the sides to be painted as well. Thus, the entire way retsuos are manufactured nowadays represents a departure from tradition. The reason, perhaps, why gedolim may be reluctant on taking on this chumrah, is that it may be misconstrued as halacha. Dovid Rubin Your soul is a part of God, part of His Infinite Essence. You are beyond limit, estimation or assessment. Ever since creation, the world has been waiting for you. Since your soul realised itself, it has been waiting for its time to perform its unique tasks of improvement. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 06:27:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:27:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakheh ess shinnav Message-ID: <57050EC8.1010702@gmail.com> I got a laugh from Larry's responses: >From http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2016/04/05/weekly-digest-news-and-essays-in-and-out-of-orthodoxy-week-of-parshas-tazria-5776/ ...Dr. Steven Bayme, who has emerged recently as the primary spokesman for PORAT...validates Biblical Criticism even when it negates parts of the Torah.... Snippet: ''Did Moses actually write that Abraham pursued his foes until 'Dan' in order to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:14), or was the place name a later editorial insert to indicate what by then had become a well-known locale? Were there two ?Yairs? who each happened to have conquered 30 villages in the Bashan 200 years apart (Deut. 3:14; Judg. 10:3-4) or was this but one incident occurring later but inserted retrospectively into the Book of Numbers as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Bashan?'' =================== larry rothenberg April 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm Steve Bayme, 3000 years from now ? ''Were there really two presidents named Bush, a father and son, who both went to war with an Iraqi dictator named Saddam Hussein? or was this but one incident occurring later but added retrospectively into American history textbooks as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Iraq?'' ==================== Naftali April 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm In the offending ''snippet'' all Dr Bayme does is raise questions. Is the mere asking of questions now considered unOrthodox? in which case, what does an Orthodox Seder look like? -------------- larry April 5, 2016 at 3:46 pm The answer depends on whether you are a chacham or a rasha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:14:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chayav Livsumei In-Reply-To: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> References: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160406191405.GB5241@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : In the words of Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter in Torah Web on "Torah : and Nevuah" I found it at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rsch_tzav.html : In his commentary to the mishnayos (end of Sanhedrin), Rambam lists what : he considers are the thirteen principles of our faith. We believe in : prophecy. It is possible for G-d to communicate with man. We also believe : that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was on a higher level than that of : any of the other prophets. What does this mean? Is Rambam grading the : prophets? If Moshe Rabbeinu gets an A+, what does Micha get? And what : grade does Chavakuk deserve? : : No, this is not a matter of grading Moshe's prophecy. What Rambam means to : say is that the only prophet who was ever given mitzvos (with a binding : force for all future generations) was Moshe Rabbeinu. His was the only : prophecy that was on the level of Torah. I didn't get this paragraph. Because: 1- As it says further down: : Moshe Rabbeinu was the only prophet who was given what we technically : refer to as "mitzvos", commandments which are binding throughout all : the future generations, because they constitute the description of G-d's : essence, which is not subject to change. None of the prophets were ever : shown "the image of God", i.e., were never given "mitzvos". They were : only given a "hora'as sha'ah", of a temporary nature only... Well, if Moshe alone was shown the tzelem E-lokim (which is necessary to receive mitzvos), isn't that grading MRAH's above Micha or Chavaquq, who did not? Now if you're going to say that's the content of the nevu'ah, not the quality of navi (pe'ula, not gavra), the pasuq itself says, "Lo qam navi od beYisrael keMosheh, asher yeda'o H' Panim el panim." (Devarim 34:10) 2- The Rambam himself says that Moshe's nevu'ah was qualitatively unique. In the 7th ikar, the Rambam describes the "peh el peh" (Bamidbar 12:8) nevu'ah of Moshe as being unique in 4 ways: a- no intermediary -- nevu'ah direct from HQBH b- he didn't need to be asleep or in a trance c- it didn't cause him to weaken and shudder (c.f. Daniel 8:8-9, 16) d- Moshe could choose when he got nevu'ah; other nevi'im received when and if Hashem chose. In the Moreh 2:35, we find: ... For I must tell you that whatever I say here of prophecy refers exclusively to the form of the prophecy of all prophets before and after Moses. But as to the prophecy of Moses I will not discuss it in this work with one single word, whether directly or indirectly, because, in my opinion, the term prophet is applied to Moses and other men homonymously. A similar distinction, I think, must be made between the miracles wrought by Moses and those wrought by other prophets, for his signs are not of the same class as the miracles of other prophets... The word "nev'uah" is only used as a homonym -- it has a different meaning when used WRT Moshe than when we call anyone else a navi / nev'uah. This goes beyond grading Moshe an A+ and some other navi an A or less. That would be saying they are at different gradations on the same scale. What Moshe did wasn't nevu'ah as all in the same sense of the word. It was a different type of perception. See also Moreh 2:45, where he lists 11 gradations of nevu'ah -- all of which in the usual sense of the word. (Moshe's being to different to even be listed as a 12th.) The Rambam was far from afraid of ranking prophecy, if not prophets. But he does make a distinction between Moshe and the other nevi'im beyond who received mitzvos and who not. As I said, I don't think that's RHS's intent either, as can bee seen in the second snippet I left in this post. I just don't know what his intent is. 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 Wed Apr 6 13:26:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:26:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:28:26AM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : http://shuihaber.com/2016/03/31/the-arba-parshiyos/ ... : Rav Sperber explains that on the 5th Shabbos, they would then go back : to where they had left off. This seems to be the literal meaning of the : mishna that says: "on the fifth Shabbos, we resume reading like usual." As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also possible. The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a : 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year : cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the : Community in Eretz Yisroel. Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from EY than among Sepharadim. The question is when did Ashkenaz itself switch. It must have been centuries before the time in discussion in any case. Machzor Vitri (R' Simchah miVitrie -- a talmid of Rashi and the Ri's grandfather) discusss leiniing Bereishis on the 2nd day of Sheini Atzeres, the terms for Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis, and even the reshus for each. But it would be ironic if Ashkenaz became the bastion of Babylonian lening, spreading it to EY. I guess it's true: there is no one so vehement as the newly converted. : Lastly, there is an old minhag to say Yotzros and Krovos during the : Shabbos morning Tefilla... : This minhag became popular amongst the Chassidim... But I think most loyally maintained bvy Yekkes, due to the aforementioned ancient Ashkenazi attitude toward piut in general. : The Rema comments that the R'i, Rashba and the Tur all hold that there : is no issue with interrupting your regular tefilla for this, but if you : do not say the Yotzros it is still fine... (Note: change fn 10 to "OC 68:1".) The Rama takes it for granted that the minyan is saying them, "vekhein nohagin bekhol hameqomos le'amram". So even though he hold "vehameiqil ve'eino omeram lo hifsid" -- as long as you're with the tzibbur and not even learning during the piyut -- I am not sure he is actually advocating for skipping it. Ad RSH put it "it is still fine". I just wanted to point out that he would NOT permit what I myself do -- use the time to learn. "Ein le'adam lifrosh atzmo meihatzibur". He repeated this in 90:10, where he advocates saying the piyutim with the tzibbur. "Velo yifrosh min hatzibur afilu la'asoq bedivrei Torah". : The Minhag of the Chasam Sofer was not to recite the piyutim during : davening, rather he would sing them during the Shabbos or YomTov : seudah. The Mesora is that the Chasam Sofer learnt this from his rebbe : the Baal Hafla'ah who learnt it form the Mezritcher Maggid who learnt : it from the Baal Shem Tov... Whatever happened to the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah"? 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 Apr 6 13:58:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406205847.GE5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger responded: : > I think those two are different in kind. : : > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use : > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) : > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. : : Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible : hypothetically, albeit not situationally? We are comparing two ways of making the door open. If making the door open is not a halachic problem, then there is no contrast. I am saying that nothing physical happens to an electric eye or UV sensor to cause the motor to go on. However, with the mat, one is moving two metal plates together (or a conductive tape against a plate). Cut away the rubber, and you would see the circuit close. There is a visible cause and a visible effect. Even if part of the causality is only explainable by appeal to the quantum scale. (BTW, atoms are mostly vacuum. It's only quantum scale repulsion of electrons that fully explains why hitting a ball with a bat changes the course of the ball; why things don't just go through eachother.) ... : If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For : it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the : electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I : missing something here? It wouldn't be the motion of the electronc, even if they were macroscopic. You might as well prohibit flushing toilets and rolling marbles down a ramp, if one inherently prohibites the giving elecrons a chance to use their potential energy (voltage). All of the theories about why electricity is assur depend on the visible effects of the cercuit, or the visible making of a circuit, not the moving of current itself. (Except of course RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan even without a Sanhedrin.) : Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which : opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei. Also on that list: sparking, unless the motor's spin rate is based on the frequency of the AC current coming in. But PRDNL wouldn't help with a deOraisa. (RYE Spektor and ROY permit it for a derabbanan, the MB only for a double-derabbanan.) Water meters were mentioned. I posted about PRDNL anhd water meters in 2012 . Click on the subject line and see the thread. : Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe : Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone : on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the : electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur : d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." ... That's OC 4:84. Who doesn't talk about the invisible, but about electric power. "Vreo'in zeh bechush", although he means you can hear it from the loudspeaker. I do not see RMF saying that power that goes into results that in principle you cannot sense would be assur. : I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does : try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can : be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has : something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both : teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". : It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely : speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be : meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should : also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. But another part of the permissibility of speaking in the presence of someone with a hearing aid is that at times even with the hearing aid, the user doesn't hear anything, thus ruling out pesiq reishei, reducing it to davar she'ein miskavein. The problem I have with your "it sounds to me" is that it begs the question: Can there be havarah that can't be sensed? (Including: Can there be havarah if something burns below yad soledes bo?) Tir'u baTov! -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 Wed Apr 6 14:50:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between > Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the > other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also > possible. It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there are two. > The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read whichever sidra is next on the roster, but we are not back on track because we still have some of the four parshiyos coming up. Only on the shabbos after Hachodesh are we "back on track", at least until Pesach comes. >> This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a >> 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year >> cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the >> Community in Eretz Yisroel. This explanation is missing a major piece of the puzzle. It's not that the Baalei Tosfos had such enormous influence on Bnei EY that they induced them to change their minhag. They never had such an influence. Rather, the crusaders completely wiped out the Yishuv of EY. By the end of the 12th century there were essentially no Jews left; the only place minhag EY survived was at the EY shul in Cairo. Slowly EY began to be repopulated, mostly by Ashkenazi olim. When the Ramban arrived there was a small community in Akko (which was under Xian rule) but not even a minyan of Jews living in Y'm. Thus the new EY community that developed, and that the Sefardim found there when they came after 1492, was composed of European olim with European minhagim, including reading the Torah on the Bavli cycle. > Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of > the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that > Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from > EY than among Sepharadim. How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. -- 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 Apr 6 15:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:10:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read : whichever sidra is next on the roster... Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? ... :> Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of :> the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that :> Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from :> EY than among Sepharadim. : How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue : for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. Then why did Ashk start out triennial? Admittedly, it changed by Rashi's day, so "start out" was quite short, but still, there are records of debate about it. Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the siyum every third Shavuos.) Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were shorter. There are better indicators, but this period in Jewish History is more RRW's thing than mine. Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and finally Egypt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 15:22:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:22:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... > :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. > > : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we > : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read > : whichever sidra is next on the roster... > > Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" > for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track > but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. >> How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue >> for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. > Then why did Ashk start out triennial? I've never heard that it did. > Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. How so? > (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the > siyum every third Shavuos.) Sorry, I don't recall that. > Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that > died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were > shorter. Is there evidence for that, or is it just speculation? BTW Targum survived in some communities for some special readings, even after it stopped being used for the whole Torah. So it's possible that when and where Akdamos were written it was still done on Shavuos even if it wasn't the whole year. > Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and > finally Egypt. Again, is this established, or speculation derived from precisely the proposition that you are trying to derive from it? BTW I just came across another survival of ancient minhag EY: The kiddush Rosh Chodesh that is well-attested in EY in the first millennium (e.g. in Mas' Sofrim and in the list of differences between EY and Bavel) survived into the 13th century in the Minhag-EY shul in Fostat, but only on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Eventually minhag EY died out in Egypt too, but the idea of having a special seder Rosh Chodesh Nissan lived on, and is still practised by Egyptian Jews today, under the name "Seder al-Tawhid" (Seder Hayyichud). -- 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 Apr 6 15:29:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:29:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between >> Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the >> other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also >> possible. >> > > It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. > However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. > There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there > are two. There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and Hahodesh. There is also a mnemonic for the dates of the hafsakot according on the date of 1 Adar, "Zivdu: Zyah Bu Dad Ubyu" but I've never found it very useful because the mnemonic is such a tongue-twister that I can never remember it and end up working out the dates from scratch and reverse engineering the mnemonic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 17:59:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:22:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. : The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is : irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. Again, I am not insisting this implication is muchrach, but look at the mishnah (Megillah 3:4): RC Adar that falls out on Shabbos, we read P Sheqalim... On the 2nd, Zakhor On the 3rd, Parah Adumah On the 4th, "HaChodesh haZeh Lakhem" On the 5th, we return to the sequence... The Ran (quoted by Tosafos YT) only discussed "basheini" saying it's the 2nd week after Sheqalim or after the break described in the ellipses at the end of the first line of my "translation". :> Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. : How so? The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning of speach..." Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying he is prefacing. In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn bera H'..." 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 Wed Apr 6 18:10:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:10:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5705B370.3080401@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 08:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning > of speach..." > > Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into > referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY > beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying > he is prefacing. > > In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning > of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn > bera H'..." Why not a preface to the day's laining? -- 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 Apr 6 19:33:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:33:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger's posts are very well thought-out. I've reached the limits of my knowledge on this topic. I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? RMB wrote: > ... RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we > all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan > even without a Sanhedrin. Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we *know* are working, but *appear* to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really can't complain. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 21:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. > The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between > 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd > and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and > Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and > Hahodesh. Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. I don't see how a siman helps with that. [Email #2. -mi] On 04/06/2016 09:10 PM, Zev Sero wrote [about Akdamus]: > Why not a preface to the day's laining? Note that Tosfos Megillah 24a d"h Uvenavi says that in their day they still did targum of the haftaros on Pesach and Shavuos, and also that of matan torah (i.e. the leining of the first day of Shavuos), but not that of any other leining or haftarah (d"h Lo Shanu on the previous page). Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. -- 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 Apr 6 23:04:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:04:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. >> The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between >> 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd >> and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and >> Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and >> Hahodesh. >> > > Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. > I don't see how a siman helps with that. I checked RSZ's source, which turns out to be Yerushalmi Megilla 3:5. The context of the siman is a mahloket in the Yerushalmi whether Parah is defined as the Shabbat before Hahodesh or the Shabbat after Purim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 03:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:18:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407101838.GB3151@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:10:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who : wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he : was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since : by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. ... in parallel to the already existing Aqdamos. So it could be a 2nd hand reflection of the cycle in use when Aqdamus was written, rather than a dispoof of connection to the cycle. (BTW, the "-ta" ending is traditionally ascribed to the idea that when a Jew stops learning Torah (tav) he must immediately begin again (alef). A homily that does fit a siyum on Devarim and starting Bereishis far better than leining inyana deyoma. Of course, who knows if that was really the author's intent. It is a "cute" understanding of the piut and worth sharing either way.) And Yetziv Pisgam does not refer to pausing to give a preface before starting The Word. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:55:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, > where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his > conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads > him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, > I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to > Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. > And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches > Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need > to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we know are > working, but appear to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are > issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really > can't complain. > Akiva Miller Pretty much what R' Asher Weiss says un putting electricity in the maakeh bpatish category defined as things that chazal didn't fit in other categories. However I think he would say gdolei haposkim will come to a consensus, not "each for himself" on major categories. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 08:40:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Kitniyot, paper goods Message-ID: <20160407154022.7A2F717FBF0@nexus.stevens.edu> Can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. On Pesach, can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover? A. Paper plates, paper towels and napkins generally contain starch. Some forms of raw starch are kitniyot, such as corn starch, while other forms of starch, such as wheat starch, are actual chametz. In the U.S, it can safely be assumed that starch used in manufacturing is kitniyot, most probably corn-based. Though one should not intentionally add kitniyot to food, with respect to paper goods this is not a concern because the starch that is part and parcel of the paper itself is nifsal mei'achila (inedible). (If paper goods contain wheat starch, the fact that it is nifsal mei'achila may not suffice to permit their use, see Magen Avrohom 442:4). Based on the above, in the US, one may use paper plates, paper towels and napkins even if not certified for Passover. For a full list of non-food items that can be used on Passover without certification please go to https://oukosher.org/passover/guidelines/non-food-items/non-food-items/. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 09:53:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160407165337.GA21819@aishdas.org> RAM entered the discussion with: > There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, > but in my experience this idea is very new. And appears to be trying to leave with: > I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great > example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, > when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? (I agree that we lack clarity here, but I am not sure why RAM thinks it's a problem with the language rather than the ideas themselves.) Well, except that this notion that halakhah doesn't concern itself with phenomenona that people cannot experience unaided (in any situation) isn't limited to a discussion of electricity or even of Shabbos. The idea that canges internal to a chip in a fitbit wouldn't be an issue for hilkhos Shabbos (until there is some macroscopic effect of those changes) is by parallel to discussions of the permissibility of drinking water that contains creatures about the same size as a trace (thinkg "wire") on a chip. 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 Thu Apr 7 12:25:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:25:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy Message-ID: <20160407192530.8B8E617FAC2@nexus.stevens.edu> Last Shabbos we read Parshas Shmini, best known for discussing and specifying the requirements for discerning which animals are considered kosher. But what is a buffalo considered? Can we partake of a nice juicy buffalo burger? Although the Shulchan Aruch himself rules that a buffalo is considered a kosher beheimah, it is quite certain that he was not referring to our American buffalo, which, actually a bison, was unknown at the time... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:14:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:14:33 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A study of Dayan Usher Weiss on LED lights in his Tshuvos will reveal his Shita that such things are likely to be considered an issur under the rubric of Makeh B'patish. I didn't merit understanding all the halachic logic but I feel he would apply it here as well. We can be halachically exploitative and also include the view that your walking on Shabbos should not be the same as Chol! I'm sure many of us have seen the strange Shabbos walk avoiding large steps. Walking with a Fitbit may possibly be construed as transgressing this possuk in Nach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 07:30:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:30:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Matzah before Passover Message-ID: <20160408143111.6480417FAAD@nexus.stevens.edu> I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan... OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Am I permitted to eat matzah which is labeled "Not Kosher for Passover"? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Matzos which are labeled "Not Kosher for Passover" are made without a full-time mashgiach present during production, and the water used in kneading the dough is not mayim she'lanu (specially drawn water). Though we would not eat these matzahs on Pesach, it is not certain that the matzahs are absolute chametz. Mishnah Berurah 471:12 writes that the Rabbinic prohibition to not eat matzah on Erev Pesach, applies even to matzah that has folds or bubbles, since such matzahs are of questionable status, and they are not absolute chametz. This would imply that "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs may not be eaten Erev Pesach, since these matzahs are also of questionable status. Nonetheless, Rav Schachter, Shlita, maintains that the definition of matzah with respect to the minhag (practiced by some) not to eat matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh is not the same as the definition of matzah relative to Erev Pesach. Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 214:1) writes that a minhag is a form of a vow. Vows are interpreted in accordance with common usage of language. Since most people consider "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs to be chametz, they may be consumed until Erev Pesach. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] Forward Unsubscribe [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 09:01:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:01:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eshbaal Message-ID: <20160408160147.GA26885@aishdas.org> >From http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/first-person-banning-baal or http://j.mp/1VdtbxE :-)BBii! -Micha Biblical Archaeology Society First Person: Banning Ba'al As published in the March/April 2016 Biblical Archaeology Review Hershel Shanks -- 04/04/2016 Was the proper name Eshbaal -- man of Ba'al -- banned in Judah after King David's time? A recent analysis suggests that it was. Ba'al, meaning lord or master, was a common divine appellative in Canaan and neighboring areas during Biblical periods, most frequently referring to the storm god. Very recently an inscription was uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa -- a site already famous for a late 11th-10th-century B.C.E. inscription -- about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. According to excavator Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, the site is probably an imposing fortress erected by King David facing the Philistines. ... The name 'Ishba'al or, more commonly, Eshbaal, is well known from the Bible. It means "man of Ba'al." (The name Beda` appears for the first time in this inscription.) ... In the Bible various Ba'al names appear of people who lived in King David's time or earlier (Jerubbaal [Judges 6:32], Meribbaal [1 Chronicles 9:40], etc.). But the Bible mentions no Ba'al names after this -- neither Ba'al nor Eshbaal. Ba'al names simply do not appear in the Bible after David's time. The archaeological situation is a bit, but not completely, different. We have more than a thousand seals and seal impressions (bullae) and hundreds of inscriptions from Israel and Judah from the post-David period (ninth-sixth centuries B.C.E.). The name Eshbaal is not to be found among these names. The situation with the name Ba'al is slightly different; it does occasionally appear in Israel -- and of course in Philistia, Ammon and Phoenicia. But not in Judah! It seems that Ba'al and Eshbaal were banned in David's kingdom. One reason may have been that, at least officially, Judah was monotheistic. Thus, names constructed with a form of a foreign deity's name -- especially of Ba'al, who was Yahweh's rival -- would not have been considered kosher. In addition, David's predecessor and rival, King Saul, fathered a son named Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33 [2]) who reigned for two years (2 Samuel 2:10) -- another good reason to bar the name in David's kingdom. [2] "Ishbosheth" in the account in 2 Samuel 2-4. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 08:52:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:52:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> References: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160411155203.GA3225@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:36:04PM IDT, R Ben Waxman posted to Areivim: : https://twitter.com/benwaxman/status/718898333075566592 : Translation of something Rav Sharki said in an article on dati : students attending university: : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? This has to be a mistranslation. After all, being unable to find an answer is FAR short of proving no answer exists. Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and tragedy. 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil 3. God exists First proposal. Therefore 4. There is no evil But observation will tell you: 5. There is evil We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. So really only 3 & 5 are plausible open to denial: either there is no G-d, or there is no evil. As I posted there: Theists consistently reject #2 "If an OOO Being exists, there would be no evil." That is given short shrift, and therefore the real argument is really swept under the rug. A world in which the OOO Being provides all the good might be worse than a world in which the OOO Being wants to provide others the opportunity to be provides of good themselves. The assumption is that a world of passive recipients is better (more good) than a world of contributors. This argument is kind of like saying that: 1- A parent has the ability to see more obvious sources of pain in advance and help a child avoid them. 2- A good parent would try to do so. Yet 3- Good parents allow their toddlers to fall on their bums when learning to walk -- despite seeing it coming. Therefore, 4- there are no good parents. The answer is -- #2 is false. There are better goods than preventing all pain. But notice I didn't answer the question of theodicy, tzadiq vera lo. Arguably the question is unanswerable to humans. (Admittedly there are O Jews who deny #5, and assert that tragedy is an illusion. My argument is more that the best universe is one that has the lesser evil, that a paradox in the human condition makes a world with no tragedy itself imperfect. The question of the reality of evil is a tangent worth exploring, but not to go even further afield than my point.) R' Sherky is NOT possibly arguing we should therefore accept Prof Haslanger's argument, though. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: While RUS's name appears around the web both as "Sharky" and "Sherky", I'm going with the evidence of . -- 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 Mon Apr 11 16:21:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:21:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag Message-ID: I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, no chrain on fish. I wonder if any other groups have such a minhag , a nd what might be the origin of such a custom. 2nd question. In re nuts on pesach , It seems all the major agencies cite that any additive free whole nuts are ok without special cert. ( pecans excepted) . However the detroit vaad recommends assuring the nuts are paked in a hametz free facility. This is NOT noted by OU, CRChic, etc. i wonder if this would be an economic hardship that the non haredim lidvar hashem would hold to. Interestingly the costco kirkland nuts remark that they maybe packed in a place w wheat, soy ,etc... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 18:59:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:59:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat > ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, > no chrain on fish Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 08:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> References: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> Message-ID: <570D11D4.8000908@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 09:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: >> I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat >> ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, >> no chrain on fish http://chabadlibrary.org/books/chasidim/otzar/4/14/39.htm Note that although this does include all the ingredients of charoses, it does not include eggs, or the greens that might be used for karpas, contrary to the sources I will cite later. > Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first > day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first > day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, > so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. > > Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems > to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be > "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. The minhag not to eat maror before the seder goes back at least to the Rashba and Rashi. Although the Bet Yosef dismisses it, the Rama cites it, and it appears to be common in many communities, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi. The BY's question is answered by many, saying that even in the case of matzah "teavon" in this context means novelty, and the pleasure that comes from that, not an actual desire for the taste of the food, so it doesn't matter whether the food tastes good or bad, or isn't even tasted at all. See under "shulchan orech", that the Ashkenazi custom is not to eat even whole eggs at the first seder, but rather to eat only beaten eggs, which is probably the origin of the common minhag to eat the egg mashed up in salt-water as a "soup". See also who says it's the common minhag of sefardim not to eat lettuce or greens, beyond the requirements, for a day before each seder, including at the first seder. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 14:28:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:28:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness Message-ID: Cannot taste the bitterness 1. "Filled me with bitter herbs - Hisbiaani bMrorim - hirvani Laana - sated of bitter" - Midrash Eichah in Psicha and on the Passuk - compares the Exodus of Mitzrayim to the Exile after the First Temple was destroyed. 2. Apparently the bitter taste of these vegetables was familiar to all. 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after kiddush. 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush. A simple person might prefer to start off with Maror ASAP. Someone may have stolen the Karpas. Those who pursue radishes for Karpas may prefer it as a secondary variety of Maror, reminding us not to consider this the REAL maror, which can only be eaten with the Matzah, in advance of next year's Korban Pesach. 5. What if one ate the Karpas leaning - bhesseiba? That would explain the child's train of thought - you eat bitter herbs - for slavery and you ate them leaning? Sorry - I have no source yet for that. When Matza was just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed Thaddeus of Rome. 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth, just call in Rabbi Vaya to check it, or alternatively? take it off the menu, finding some other food for appetizer. 7. skip the appetizer. Renal patients who cannot drink begin with Kiddush on Matzah, which some would much prefer. The Magid would be after the meal had initialized. 8. Lately I checked two heads of Romaine lettuce. When I sample some leaves, no bitterness was to be found, just a very mild sweetness. in fact the Pri Chadash in back of SA Orach Chaim - openly advocates that totally sweet lettuce - sans bitterness - is perfectly acceptable! To recap, the Mishnah lists five grain varieties for Matzah, which are exclusive. It then lists 5 varieties for Maror, but even the Amoraim debated what to buy. Rav Huna Bar abba ? sought Maror - the bitterest herb eponymous with bitterness, as the Mehadrin would seek. Rava chided him - Chas Rachmana Alan - Hashem had consideration for us and prefers Chassa (pun - means lettuce) which has some sweetness. 9. I take this metaphorically - Hashem is always keeping the balance of sweetness and bittterness in the fortunes of the Jerwish People. Fixating on bitterness can lead to bad results. 10. The Pri Chadash quotes the famous Aruch (of Rome, a century before Rashi, disciple perhaps of Rabeinu Chananeil) on Charchavina, one of the 5 species of the Mishna, defined generically - "one sort of bitter herbs". 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 sons taste it ? 12. Is Maror a specific species exact type of plant? Ateres Tzvi (margin of OC 473) and Elya Rabba combine to say there is a family called Lettuga - lettuces. That helps immensely - as the leading species candidate is "bitter lettuce" - Hebrew Chassa Matzpen - has spine of bumps on its leaf, and is a glorified dandelion! My neighbor the botanist has no idea where to find it but he offered me some fresh horseradish leaves. Horseradish relates to the cabbage family - including endives, which get some mention. 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection. My father's tears would flow as he ground his horseradish every year. The Chochmas Shlomo, Rav Shlomo Kluger, seems to have the high road of directness here. Rambamists can see that the examples of foods barely edible - which barely are considered normal foods - in Shvisas Asor - are these very vegetables - Chizrin. 15. The famous Rav Chaim Berlin, son of the Netziv, apparently got medical advice not to eat horseradish, and sought grounds to absolve his Neder. He sent a letter to his father the Netziv whether he should continue to eat Khrein. Netziv - as predictable - answers - use Sallatin - lettuce - like the common practice, and also the zayis olive size is very small. [Meromei Sadeh]. 16. In OC 473 the Lvush and Elya Rabba - praise to the publishers of the new Levush set - discuss Maror, and Ateres Tzvi explains that any lettuce is fine, as long as it is bitter. 17. Biologically chickory and lettuce are very close. If even the cabbages - the latin name braccidae are also included in Maror, then perhaps both kale in its beauty and varieties are included, even perhaps arugula. 18. Perhaps I will make the bracha on kale, then arugula, then Romaine, then horseradish for mimetic imitation of my father. 19. For me - no more sweet or tasteless Maror, I cannot make it bitter anymore. 20. See also Kovetz - in back of the old Rambams. See Aruch al Hashas who has in kilayim and in other places diagrams and exact species names for all the candidates mentioned in the mishnayos. There is an alphabetical index in the last volume. 21. Identification of Chizrin with Chazeres is no sure thing. Professor Felix has a sefer called haChaklaut..... which explains from a farmer's point of view what it means that a crop thrives in the shade. 22. This is actually a call for help! I imagine most people deal with these questions annually. Please - any opinion or information will be helpful to me. 23. David Wacholder 5:15 PM (2 minutes ago) Email: dwacholder at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Wed Apr 13 09:07:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:07:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum Message-ID: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: https://soundcloud.com/jroot-radio/yosef-wikler-apr-07?in=jroot-radio/sets/kashrus-on-the-air. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me or click here to subscribe kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 13 13:16:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum In-Reply-To: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds > this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in > 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered > Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's > largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... This is last years info. The link is to an article from 5775. The OU & Star-K are still certifying quinoa, as they did last year. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 14 18:51:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:51:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos Message-ID: Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this (even opening with the remark that this halacha is "pashut - simple"), yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. I will concede that this was a literally parenthetical (or rather, bracketed) comment, and perhaps we should not darshen too much into it. But on the other hand, he had the option of saying that a choleh may *eat* kitnyos himself, and insted he took the extra step of saying that *we* may do the cooking. And yet, the Chofetz Chaim omitted the warning which is so ubiquitous today, that the cooking should be done in separate pots, not to be eaten from by healthy Ashkenazim. So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. (Plenty of poskim talk about ta'aroves kitniyos, but that's usually an after-the-fact situation, and I don't want to get bogged down on whether or not the situations are similar. I'd rather hear about those who explicitly address the keilim issue.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 07:15:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:15:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160415141538.GA30368@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:51:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that : Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid : ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. RMF explains that one may drink whisky (51 weeks a year) aged in wine casks because we do not prohibit ta'am stam yeinam. The core of his argument is that stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6 (YD 134:5). One can taste the wine in a mixture of one part wine to 6 parts water. (IM YD 1:62) Well, qitniyos is batel berov. (Rama OC 453:1, see MB ad loc that explains the Rama must mean where the qitniyos is a mi'ut, and is not permitting every mixture.) Bringing me to the need to switch the formula for KLP Coca Cola. Corn is a late edition to qitniyos, as it is a New World plant. Corn syrup adds the issue of mei qitniyos. A 12 oz can of coke has 140 Cal (Pepsi: 150). High fructose corn syrup is 4 Cal/gm, so that 12 fluid oz can cannot contain more than 35 gm = 1-1/4 oz (weight) mei qitniyos. Less than 10%, never mind rov. So, the problem with standard American Coke is mei iffy-qitniyos that is batul. And yet it's avoided on Pesach? (According to 80% of tasters prefer Mexican Coke, which -- like KLP Coke -- only differs by the use of sugar rather than HFCS. So I hope no one from Coke is actually reading this post.) :-)BBii! -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 Fri Apr 15 07:49:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness Message-ID: 1. R' Micha pointed out the Yerushalmi discussion whether Chassa metuka sweet lettuce is kosher. That shows that the name - Chazeret Chasa - synonymous with Marror is sufficient, and bitter taste is not necessary. 2. R' Chaim Kanievsky points out that the Chazon Ish - Orach Chaim page 398 in Otzar Hachochma - strongly rejects that conclusion from the Yerushalmi! (hat tip to R' Kalman Gutman!) 3. After 6 lines pointing out how vital the taste of Maror is, CI shows the absurds of such a conclusion - if so you can leave the Maror in Chazeres, and need not taste it at all - swallow in a sieve - and since any vegetable which is bitter is sufficient to be Yotzei, we see that the bitter taste is the governing principle. 4. 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond edible. 6. Thus we should pursue bitter lettuce. The paradox is that the lettuce industry spends all its resources to prevent "bolting" - becoming bitter. The economy runs on sweet lettuce, as CI also pointed out. Pesach is in spring, so it is not so simple. 7. That would be the practical problem the Yerushalmi is attacking. You do not need the strongest bitterness, mild transitional bitterness sufficient. 8. The super-kosher bug-free industry now markets "greenhouse" kale and arugula, which are mildly bitter. I purchased both last night. Usually they are used by French chefs. This is a classic Chazon Ish. He wanted Torah based lifestyle, and Mehadrin bitterness in Maror fits right in with his theme. Build on the sound simple meaning of the Torah. -- David Wacholder Email: dwacholder at gmail.com dwacholder at optonline.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:59:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:59:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos Message-ID: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Or if you want, I am equally reviving the threads "Minhag Avos and Minhag haMakom" (see the group of threads at ) "Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva" "Paradigm Changes in Halacha" or the quite timely "obsession with kitniyot" In AhS this week, I found I was not alone in concluding from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim ch.4, cases in both TB and RY) that there is a general rule binding one (of a community) to maintain minhag avos. (At least when there is no conflicting single minhag hamaqom.) The AhS (YD 119:42, closing paranthetic) cites the minhag of Benei Baishan (Pesachim 50b) not to travel from Tzur to Tzidon on erev Shabbos. His case is a visitor who is keeping he minhagim of his host community. The Shakh and Maharal Chaviv say that if everyone else is eatting something that by his minhag is prohibited -- not as local pesaq, but as actual minhag -- he may eat it with them. The AhS leaves it with a tzarikh iyun gadol, because visiting a place should not allow their minhagim to override minhag avos. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:43:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:43:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57110C14.1000403@sero.name> On 04/15/2016 10:49 AM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: > 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your > lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond > edible. This is not true. The ChTz says no such thing. -- 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 Sun Apr 17 09:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit Message-ID: I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat. Both of them are important experts in halacha and modern technology Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need t fixler said he heard the same psak from t ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 03:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:27:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 1:02 PM Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both > Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat.... > Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it > was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need r fixler said he heard > the same psak from r ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan Why is it not mesaken mane? [Transliteration mine. -micha] -- Shui Haber From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:27:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Shui Haber wrote: > Why is it not mesaken mane? [transliteration still mine -micha] They hold that anything that cannot be seen or felt is nor metaken-maneh or any other melacha. Of course if one pushes buttons or has a model in which the results are shown immediately on the watch then it would be forbidden. The assumption is that nothing on the watch indicates that it is recording. Rosen indicated to me that he has written all this but I do not at present have his teshuva. The general approach of tzomet is that (almost) all their products are meant for special individuals etc, sick, police, doctors etc when needed. Though they don't manufacturer a smart watch the same principles hold. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:51:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:51:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us from my question.) My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can remember. But the hagada seems to say more. It does not merely tell what the proper response should be, but it also seems to direct that response to specific responder(s). I am referring to the hagada's words, "v'af atah". What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! Am I totally off track? Anyone see my question? Does anyone have a translation or perush that doesn't ignore the word "af"? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB: > > Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger > (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) > G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and > tragedy. > > 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO > 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil > 3. God exists > > First proposal. Therefore > 4. There is no evil > > But observation will tell you: > 5. There is evil > > We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. > (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually once started a thread here called ?What can?t God do??. Some examples: Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? Can God lie? I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. > (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a > prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil > to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, God, have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God really want that? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:04:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:04:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5714F781.9020002@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:51 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: > > (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem > (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar > (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh > (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved > > (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us > from my question.) I will, however, point out that translating it "knock out", or as any kind of blow, is completely ignorant. There is simply no way that it can mean that. So where does this stupid idea come from? It *could* come from some amhoretz confusing it with "hakei", hei kaf hei, meaning to hit. But I think it's more likely to come from Yiddish, a language the baal hagada never even heard of, and the phrase "hack ois", or in English "hack out". > My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply > have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that > would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can > remember. What specific wording are you suggesting instead of the ones the baal hagadah uses? > What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should > hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument > being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh > his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! > > Am I totally off track? I think so. How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him. -- 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 Mon Apr 18 08:09:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:09:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: What is the status of cooking kitniyot in a pot on Pesach (for ashkenazim). Outside of Israel this is relevant only for small children, sick etc. In Israel it is relevant this year as to whether one can cook kitniyot on the 7th day of Pesach for the immediate following shabbat. All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the pot even for use the following year ! He further claims that this is the standard custom. I have seen that RHS allows use the same day. Does anyone know of others who require actually kashering the pot even if it won't be used until Pesach next year. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:04:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: I asked why the Hagada uses the words "v'af atah" to introduce the answer to the rasha. R' Zev Sero responded: > How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked > son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that > your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say > something harsh to him. Interesting thought. But if so, then for the other OOPS! I hadn't noticed that these exact same words introduce the Hagada's answer to the chacham. And rightly so - Your child is asking a detailed question, and you too should respond with a detailed answer. My bad. Thanks! But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? (The She'eino Yodea Lish'ol never asks anything at all, so there is no congruency to invoke RZS's suggestion.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:14:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:14:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57156A61.2000800@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:04 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > > But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: > > 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? > 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? > 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? Because he simply quotes the pasuk. In the cases of the first two sons he (for some reason) davka *doesn't* quote the pasuk's response (Avadim Hayinu to the chacham and Zevach Pesach Hu to the rasha), but makes one up for the chacham, and borrows the she'eino yodea lish'ol's answer for the rasha. For the second two sons he simply quotes the pesukim verbatim. -- 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 Tue Apr 19 13:34:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:34:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to others subunits (e.g. ethnic). Any good actuary (or even a poor one) can tell you correlation doesn't prove causation, but it does provide some thoughts on some interesting questions (e.g. why the switch to ethnic minhagim from geographic ones?). 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 01:07:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:07:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: a story from years ago A friend of mine lived near RMF on the lower east side. One year RMF invited him for seder. However the friend didn't eat gebrochs but was too polite to tell RMF that he couldn't come because he was more machmir and so made up some excuse. Same thing happened the next year. The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat at my seder. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 05:17:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:17:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special Message-ID: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Pesach is a Yom Tov of diverse moods. The tragic and heroic, the mournful and hopeful, the somber and sentimental ? strangely commingled and reflected in the services and rituals. One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l?zecher aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b?Av. Interestingly, the first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b?Av. So as Pesach begins Friday evening this year (and last), so too, Tisha b?Av (actual date) begins Friday evening this year (and last). At our seder, we read about the Four Children (quite different from each other, but a portion of each of the sons in all of us). On Pesach we usher in the solemn days of Sefirah, which cast a spell upon the mirthful spirit of this Yom Tov and which recalls the ill-fated Bar Kochba rebellion with its gloomy aftermath; and on the same night, we open the door for Eliyahu HaNavi, the harbinger of glad tidings. On the day we recite Yizkor (with sad overtones), we recite Hallel (quite the opposite). On the day when we read the Haftorah of the ?Valley of the Dry Bones,? and we ask with the prophet: ?Son of man, can these bones live?? (Ezek. 37); this very same day, we read Shir Hashirim, the song of youth and of hope. When we think of all the trouble, travail, terrorism in the world and some of the trials and tribulations in our own lives, we can drink four cups of wine and temporarily forget our troubles. May your present be better than your past and not as good as your future! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:42:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:42:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special In-Reply-To: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> References: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Message-ID: <20160420154253.GA21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:17:29AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l'zecher : aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b'Av. Interestingly, the : first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b'Av. The iqar is to have two cooked foods. Egg and shankbone is a layer on top of that. Judging from the Ari's lining up the items on the ke'arah with the 10 sefiros, wre are using the egg as the cooked food in memory of the chagigah, and the bone to regall the qorban pesach. One could link that to mourning, that we are mourning the real seder, complete with qorban, as we sit down to our best-we-can-do one. And we did lose the ability to make a qorban pesach on 9 beAv. But the egg isn't really about aveilus directly. 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 Wed Apr 20 08:47:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:47:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:07:55AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly : asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the : real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 : guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said : now you can eat at my seder. I know also the IM permits Ashkenazim who daven "Sfard" to switch back to Ashkenaz (even over 150 years after the family first switched to). But I didn't think he was in general a believer in the idea that Litvisher minhagim were superior to other East European ones. Just that davening was differenct because it's a switch back to the earlier nusach. So what's going on here? Why would he encourage someone to quit the minhag of gebrochts? (For weaker grounds than usually argued against qitnios.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:57:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:57:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> References: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> I can't answer for sure but my guess would be that RMF felt that one could quit gebrochs for a sufficiently good reason and he felt that this was a good reason. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 20:17:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos References: Message-ID: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> R? AM: What about an ordinary old-fashioned film camera? Without a flash, there's nothing electrical about it. In fact, when one presses the shutter, nothing at all happens except that some chemical reactions occur in the film. Even after Shabbos, there is no visible change to the film, until after it has undergone some specific chemical treatment. Yet I've never seen a shomer shabbos person use such a camera on Shabbos, nor have I ever hear it suggested that it might only be d'rabanan. ------------------ Old MYG: That?s a great question, I think, about the film camera. I agree that it makes sense that it should be only a d?rabanan, except for Polaroid. And the d?rabanan may well be that since its entire purpose is to be in service to that Kesivah, it?s a Kli She?melachto L?issur, and therefore muktzah. But if that?s so, then the heteirim of muktzah would therefore apply, like tiltul min hatzad, and shvus d?shvus, l?tzorech gufo, and so on? After reading through it, I still don?t see any reason to prohibit it besides for Muktzah? Rabbi Bleich at this link (http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%203/Survey%20of%20Recent.pdf) quotes R? SZA that it?s ?mistaver? that taking a film photo is assur m?drabanan. Rabbi Bleich himself is not so impressed with that argument. ----------------------------- New MYG: I thought of another issur ? taking a photo with a film camera is Hachanah, because you?re only taking it for the result that you will get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d?oraysa. KT and CKVS, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:50:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:41:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the harsh attack. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:32:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:32:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> References: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160421193255.GA9816@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:17:10PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I thought of another issur -- taking a photo with a film camera is : Hachanah, because you're only taking it for the result that you will : get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d'oraysa. Return back to nidon didan (from the subject line)... A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the same reasoning would apply. But many other such devices can be used as a digital watch on Shabbos. So carrying it around -- even if you want the step tracking -- is not ONLY for the tracking. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:50:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:50:56PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to : make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not : a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. Actually, for RMF in particular, I find that hard to imagine. The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they were in error, he does advocate a more limited form -- cooking dishes from boiled matzah because the result may be confused with recipes that produce chameitz. The Keneses haGedolah (17th cent) confirms the Raavan's fears with a story of it actually happening. Someone made fish "breaded" with matzah meal, and the neighbor mistakenly learned from it that it was okay to fry fish in actual flour. Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after the Besh"t -- there are stories about the Baal Shem Tov eating keneidelach on Pesach, the Magid of Mezritch did not eat gebrochts. The SA haRav (discussed here annually) says that the change was due to a change in how we make matzah. This is the same generation in which kneading time was counted toward the mil, and therefore the whole process got more rushed. Until then, the chance of umixed flour remaining on/in the dough was unrealistic. I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thing cracker matzos; it would only apply to the Rama's only less than a tefach matzah. So here you have two people writing at close to the same time, one explaing why the minhag recently started, the other assuming the minhag is old and no longer applicable to the current umdena. But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer applicable. 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 Thu Apr 21 13:04:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:04:14 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: between gebroks and kitniyos, with our modern eye could we say one is more justified or were both products of the time. eg gebroks was invented in altererebe's time as a reaction to the nexus of thick matzos with incompetent bakers. kitniyos a reaction to legume-flour nexus . today , almost all matzos are either mechanized or learnedly baked; and only thin matzos made in ashkenazi land [unless you order softmatza.com]. and though legume flours like chickpea are extant, the communities that primarily use them never accepted this new minhag. it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them off... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 19:50:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on > Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal > Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. > I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the > pot even for use the following year ! Last week, in the thread "Ta'am kitniyos", I wrote that Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this, yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. So I will now rephrase the question that I had asked there: RET referred here to "seforim". Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this question in writing, and gives his reasoning. (My wild guess is that if such a source can be found, it is less likely to be in the context of baby food, and more likely to be in the context of an Ashkenazi who was invited to eat at a Sephardi home on Pesach.) Anyone know of such seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 13:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:50:07 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2016 5:50 AM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they > were in error, he does advocate a more limited form ... > Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after > the Besh"t... The SA haRav... > I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. > Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that > gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thin cracker matzos... > But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world > used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which > case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer > applicable. I don't see how any of these considerations suggest that Gebrochts is a Minhag that requires Hatarah. In fact I think it more than likely they reflect otherwise. The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are hardly substantial. And if there is any substance to the reason being related to the change in the way Matza is made, well then being so late, it can hardly be considered a binding Minhag. And one opinion is not adequate to propel activity to the point of being a binding Minhag, especially when it is so poorly justified. BTW it is astonishing that Matza of 10mm thickness be considered edible when baked to the point of being hard. You would need a hammer and cold chisel to break it. It makes no sense. Such Matza would only be edible if it was baked soft. Re the ShTeshuvah, he limits the problem to soft Matza, which is GRATED on a RibAysen (and explains that the problem no longer exists due to changes to the Matza used for making meal being baked hard and describe CRUSHING it) so it must have been soft. Soft Matza that is whole can be easily evaluated to determine if it is fully baked. Once it is grated however, that becomes impossible. The problem is compounded when you remember that probably the most important quality sought by the balabusta is that it be as white as possible so the risk of being under baked is all the greater. There was not ever a concern that flour remained in the Matza and that might become Chamets. But even if it did it can not become Chamets since it has been heated. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 09:11:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160422161136.GA4937@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:04:14PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them : off... An earlier question... Given our lack of minhag hamaqom, do we want to cast minhag avos off? What ties us to community if we're not connecting "laterally" to our contemporaries if not our connection to the past? Pesach is so experiential and so nostalgia driven, perhaps we should harbor / develop enough attachment to minhag avos (mimeticism) for that alone to motivate keeping qitniyos. :-)|,|ii! (And a special :-)|,ii to any Granikim out there!) -Micha PS: Yes, I do appreciate the irony that in a post about preserving minhag avos, I do a "shout out" to those who use 2 matzos at their seder. Even though most of them are doing so in a choice of textualism over mimeticism. -- 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 Fri Apr 22 09:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 06:50:07AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are : hardly substantial. The stories about the Besht are that he DID eat gebrochts. This isin contrast to the SA haRav who was firmly against. And the SA haRav (shu"T #6 in the bac of vol 6) IS substantial. See last year's BTW, while I fint this hard to accept as RMF's pesaq, R Eli Turkel told us last year that RSZA does hold as per the story about RMF: > In Halichos Shlomo (p90) it states explicitly that one can change his > custom and eat gebrochs after hatart nedarim. However, this should be done > only if there is a good reason (tzorach chashuv) for the change. Thus, for > a chatan he would allow the hatarat nedarim if keeping bebrochs would cause > family difficulties. And R Yisrael Herczeg wrote: > ... I just looked over the notes of the droshoh Rav Yitzchok > Mordechai HaKohen Rubin gave last Shabbos. He said that Rav Elyashiv > allowed for hataras neder on gebrochts. He also mentioned that Rav Chaim > Kanyevski said that the Steipler was matir neder on gebrochts for someone > who had difficulty eating matzah unless it was softened with liquid. He > added that Rav Chaim Greineman said that the Chazon Ish told him that the > Steipler's heter was invalid. And yet in his own life: > I asked Rav Elyashiv z"l if I could be matir neder on gebrokts and he told > me I could not. >From R/Prof Y Levine: > A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud > of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in > the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating > gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar > Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: > The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one > who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to > eating Gebrokts. > It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may > rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. > Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when > Matzohs were thick Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST that the minhag refers to a kind of matzah most of you do not eat. I have a few lb from the Syrian community in Flatbush, in addition to the usual. So if I had the minhag of nisht gebrochts, RYSE might still have told me to limit my hataras nedarim and continue not eating Syrian-style matzos with liquids. IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for reasons similar to the RYSE report. :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 14:11:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding hachanah, R' Micha Berger wrote: > A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the > same reasoning would apply. True, but hachana is a problem only if specific actions are taken to do that preparation. For example, washing one's hands over a sink full of dirty dishes is okay, even if one likes the idea that the dishes will get wet, provided that he'd be washing his hands there anyway, even if the sink was empty. So too for the Fitbit, which is already attached to whatever, and one is not doing any specific action for the Fitbit. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 24 04:00:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:00:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says > he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the > minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST ... > IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my > opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. > And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for > reasons similar to the RYSE report. May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. The closest true argument was documented by the ShTeshuvah who clearly related the problem to the type of Matza baked to be used for Gebrochts - it was at risk of not being properly baked [presumably because they were trying to keep it as white a possible] and being Chamets in the first place - it actually had nothing to do with the Matza Meal becoming wet. And that problem was solved by modifying the Matza baked for meal to be baked hard. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 15:27:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim Message-ID: In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: shabasos limnucha moadim l'simcha chagim uzmanim l'sason I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are, especially as opposed to the other three. But what precisely distinguishes the other three from each other? My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they the same in regards to Sason? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 12:58:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:58:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> An Areivim exchange... On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08pm IDT, R `Eli Turkel wrote: > what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:31pm +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes : from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. ... Doesn't this just beg the question? I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 2nd day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 18:22:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:22:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Areivim, Lisa Liel wrote: >> On Areivim R `Eli Turkel wrote: >>> what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts >> According to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. > I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah > of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw > from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? Who says he *did* associate lions with melucha? The pesukim don't make such an association. Unkelus does make that connection, translating "gur aryeh Yehudah" as a prophecy that royalty will come to Yehudah, but even there Rashi explains that this means that a young David will become a mighty king, just as a lion cub becomes a mighty beast. So the lions there are not really a symbol of royalty but of might; and Unkelus's treatment of the rest of the pasuk seems to confirm that. But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. -- 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 Apr 27 00:50:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:50:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> The best source is RYZA halichot shlomo volume on moadim - Pesach page 350 (shin-mem) He pasjens that (like this year) one can cook kitniyot on friday for shabbat assuming there are people in the neighborhood who eat kitniyot (ie sefardim) and on shabbat one can eat foods that has in them chametz derabban. One should be machmir only on chametz deoraisa. The notes below go into detailed reasons. I didnt see anything about the dishes. but as mentioned he just casually says one can cook the kitniyot. Rav Rimon in his hagadah (ie the last few years) also allows cooking kitniyot for the last shabbat after pesach Though it isnt a sefer the email sent out of ROY's piskei halachot also allow cooking kitniyot on friday for shabbat for ashkenazim again using the reasoning that sefardim can eat the kitniyot on Pesach itself (he quotes the shut of RSZA minchat shlomo tenina end of siman 17). He paskens that it is preferable to use special pots -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 00:56:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:56:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RMF and gebrocha Message-ID: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebrochts According to Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik of Vitebsk, the custom originated with Dov Ber of Mezeritch .[2] (This appears, for example, in Shulchan Aruch HaRav , c. 1800.) In fact, the members of some nineteenth century Lithuanian Jewish communities deliberately ate gebrochts to demonstrate the permissibility of this practice.[*citation needed *] Both the Vilna Gaon [3] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ruled that there is no reason to avoid eating gebrochts. (no source given) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 05:03:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:03:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Changes in Shmoneh Esreh Message-ID: Yesterday, as I was davening mincha, I found myself working hard to keep my eyes in the siddur, lest I make one of the mistakes that I'd have to repeat Shmoneh Esreh for. It occurred to me that in the course of the year, there are many minor changes which are *not* m'akev the tefila, such as Anenu, Al Hanisim, and the constant choice between Sim Shalom and Shalom Rav. But it seems to me that only four of those are so critical that - depending on circumstances - they can be m'akev one's Shmoneh Esreh: Morid Hageshem or omitting it HaMelech Hakadosh vs. HaE-l Hakadosh Tal Umatar Yaaleh V'yavo The chidush that came to me suddenly is that of these four changes, *three* of them apply on Chol Hamoed Pesach. There are three parts of the tefilah that we must get right, because messing up *any* of those three requires us to repeat the Shmoneh Esreh from scratch. This seems to be unique. Is there another part of the year where even two difference changes are me'akev? In Eretz Yisrael, Tal Umatar begins only two weeks after Geshem, but in Chu"l, I don't think there's ever a situation where even two of those apply at the same time. Even on Aseres Y'mei Teshuva, which has six changes (Zachrenu, Mi Kamocha, HaMelech Hakadosh, HaMelech Hamishpat, U'chsov, B'sefer), only one of them is critical. I'm not sure if there is any special significance to all this. I just wanted to point it out in case it might help others pay more attention and not forget the changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 08:10:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:10:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73622773-BB32-4FA9-B6ED-CFF33EF6C253@optimum.net> RMGR: > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. > I would have thought just the reverse. If there?s a halachic foundation all it requires is a psak. When the behavior is extra-halachic we may require hataras nedarim. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 09:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:12:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:06:02AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) ... :> We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. :> (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO : This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually : once started a thread here called "What can't God do?". Some examples: : Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? : Can God lie? The Moreh discusses both points. 1- Omnipotence is really a statement that nothing lies beyond his Potency than insisting He posesses an infinite amount of power. 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless nonsense clauses. The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Why? It would be pure Tov, not Chesed. : Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. Thus the idea I labeled #1 above from the Moreh, and his via negativa. R' Moshe Taqu infamously takes the opposite approach -- it would be presumptuous to define G-d even to the extent of insisting that we must limit ourselves to defining what He Isn't. RMT therefore insists we must accept the descriptions in Tanakh uncritically. (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, one way or the other.) :> (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a :> prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil :> to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. : Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general : problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, : God, : have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods : may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. : So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God : really want that? Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congential birth defects and other such natural evils. This could be one element in a broader answer. And that was sort of my point... By ignoring the whole subject of theodicy, Dr Haslanger misses the main point she would need to refute. As an aside, a central part of RYBS's hashkafah is that much of free will is choosing between goods that are in dialecitcal tension. More often than a pure good vs evil choice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? the tragic which :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427170529.GB29457@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:41:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah wrote: : Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you : should also say something harsh to him : : This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the : harsh attack. Maybe it's true by definition. A rasha is someone who is beyond listening. And the child ready to hear the soft response isn't a rasha. I saw someone suggest haqheih here is meant in the sense of morbid craving, not blunting. As in Y-mi Shevi'is 4:6 (vilna 12a) "Amar Rabbi Avun: derekh haqeihus okhelin oso". And shinav -- in the sense of veshinantam. In which case, you have the pretty idea: Make him crave his studies. But it doesn't work. "Haqhei es shinav" is an idiom that is used elsewhere by Chazal, such as Sotah 49a (2x). (There is also "anavim qeihos" as unripe or sour grapes in Avos 4:20, but that may just be a third usage.) But since haqhei es shinav is an idiom, maybe the idiomatic meaning is far milder than a literal translation. Like "shut him up". (Edginess of my translation intentional, to relay the aggressiveness implied by the idiom.) :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:21:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:21:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> On 04/27/2016 12:12 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore > part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. > But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, > any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless > nonsense clauses. > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. CS Lewis agreed with the Rambam. See my .sig Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach bigvul". The purpose of creation, Chabad says, and of all our avodah, is to make Him a "dira batachtonim", which is a logical impossibility. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 13:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed : >create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", : and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach : bigvul".... Nowadays there are multiple logics. Some are just mathematical playthings, but many are used in the real world. (The two I somewhat know are fuzzy logic, used in many problems like thermostats, to represent predicates like "hot" which has varying degrees of truth; and quantum logic, used in subatomic physics.) Speaking of non-classical logics , I heard RYBS discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. Because RYBS's topic was how bein hashemashos is actually both days at once. This explains why an esrog used one day is assur BHS because it's the same day and then assur the next day because it was also BHS -- the start of that day. But the notion of noone special logic makes the Rambam's idea that logic is part of Truth and thus of His Essence much harder to support. You would have to go meta, and speak of the usability of various logics in general. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 14:46:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:46:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name>,<20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> > > Speaking of non-classical logics > , I heard RYBS > discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which > he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows > for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that > halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. ---------------------- I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law of the excluded middle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle Moadim lsimcha 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 Apr 27 18:35:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:35:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: I had asked: > Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many > publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that > kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. > But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this > question in writing, and gives his reasoning. Yes! "Medical Halachah for Everyone" [1980, Feldheim] by Abraham S. Abraham MD, page 82, gives a specific procedure for an Ashkenazi who is suffering from diarrhea and needs to eat rice on Pesach, and then writes: > Separate utensils must be used for cooking and eating such foods on Pesach. His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf Hachayim). Then, he discusses at length whether or not a (Ashkenazi) guest needs to worry if his (Sefardi) host used those keilim in the past 24 hours, and several related situations. HOWEVER -- I am shocked by how different this halacha appears in Dr Abraham's book, and in the sefer he cites. I concede that the Kaf Hachayim does cite several problems that the Ashkenazi should be concerned with, and I concede that Dr Abraham's procedure safeguards against them all. But it also conjures up additional problems that the Kaf Hachayim was NOT worried about. Some might say that I am being too hard on a "kitzur sefer" that tries to service the layman by packing a lot of information into a few pages. I say: On the contrary! His book could have been two words shorter if he had left out the words "and eating". If the kli rishon is okay after 24 hours, I would imagine that the kli sheni is okay even sooner. Oh - here's another thing: The Kaf Hachayim was talking about a *healthy* Ashkenazi who eats from Sefardi keilim. I think that if Dr Abraham is going to apply those halachos to an Ashkenazi *choleh*, maybe he should cite a posek on it. Caveat lector! Check the sources whenever you can! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:20:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > > > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. > > He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any > of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf > Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the beginning of the first volume? Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:29:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Old Audio Tapes Message-ID: <57581d198d4c45e5863bdf9e300d7dac@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Our shul is getting rid of a large number of old shiurim on audio cassettes and CD's. Does anyone know of any digitization projects that might be interested before they are disposed of? Kol Tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 09:26:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:26:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] I shall sing to Hashem for He is exalted above the arrogant Message-ID: <1461860967014.47103@stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/gmsnkks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 30 12:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:29:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Matzik l'rabim Message-ID: <5725078F.7070109@zahav.net.il> Rav Asher Weiss discusses a case in which a small number of graves are found in a place that is not designated to be a beit qevarot. This piece of land is slated for a large construction project, which would in all likelihood mean damaging the graves. He discusses various reasons for moving (or not moving) the graves. One of the ideas that he brings up is "matziq et harabim" (damage to the public). He concludes that this reason wouldn't apply here; the claim "matziq et harabim" can be used to permit moving graves only if the graves cause teumah to kohenim. Why would forcing kohenim to take a different path (possibly a very small detour) be sufficient reason to move graves but a major building project not? PS: For a variety of other reasons, RAW permitted moving the graves. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:24:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 19:24:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: in response to David Riceman's suggestion - extra-halachic behaviour is likely to require Hatarah whilst those that have a Halachic foundation require a Pesak consider this: if there is no Halachic foundation for a Minhag then it will never require Hatarah, it is an error. The custom to sniff snuff in Shule on Shabbos can never gain status of a Minhag that requires Hatarah if there is some Halachic foundation then notwithstanding it not being recognised as binding Halacha, if it is adopted as a custom it may well require Hatarah if one wishes to abandon the custom Therefore since we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation of there being a risk that wet Matzos may become Chamets, the Minhag of Gebrochts is no different to the Paroches being blue or maroon and suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 08:34:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 11:34:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: I have a question about an Old French word that appears in a Rashi. I hope that someone on the list is fairly fluent in French, or has access to such a person. But first, an introduction... It is not unusual for an English-speaker to refer to Rosh Hashana as the "New Year", or to Yom Kippur as the "Day of Atonement". These are legitimate translations, and it is clear to me that they are used in certain circles. In contrast, the name of Chanuka is generally not translated; it is transliterated or adapted into English as Chanukkah or Hanuka or something similar, but translations like "Festival of Dedication" (and "Festival of Lights", which isn't really a translation at all) are much rarer. But this post is not about those holidays; it is about the one we just completed. I have long thought that the English language was unique, in that we have a translation for the name Pesach, namely "Passover". I concede that although we might perceive of "Passover" as a basic word of simple English, it was actually coined by William Tyndale in the early 1500s, for the specific purpose of translating the root "pesach" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible#Legacy). Be that as it may, it *IS* an easily-understood term for any English-speaker, most especially in the contexts of Shmos 12:11-13: "They will eat the Passover offering... and I will pass over them..." and Shmos 12:27: ?It is the Passover offering, to G-d Who passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt..." I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the focus on the experiential story. But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:16:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:16:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 11:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 20:13:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> On 4/27/2016 7:09 PM, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: > I don't know on what basis the digests say that you need separate kelim > for kitniyos. The taam of kitniyos that is absorbed into the pot in > which it was cooked is automatically batel. I think it's just recommended > for a heker, so you'll remember not to eat kitniyos yourself, and not > really necessary at all. > And if you know before Pesach that you're going to cook kitniyos for > next Shabbos, you'll leave it out of the chometz cupboard. I read various guides about this Shabbat. To sum up the issues involved: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. 2) Does the eiruv tavshilin cover cooking kitniyot? Since you would be cooking the rice/beans when they are assur to you, maybe teh ET doesn't cover it. However according to Rav Shlomo Zalman, if one lives in a place in which there are Sefardim, the theoretical possibility that a Sefardi person would stop over is enough. 3) Checking the kitniyot: One has to check the kitniyot for chameitz. I personally bought Kitov rice that had been checked twice and only a third check was required. Why they didn't check it a third time, I don't know. 4) Anything cold (eg chummus) isn't a problem at all. 5) Addendum: This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issues. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:45:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 12:45:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Simon Montagu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < >> He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any >> of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf >> Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the > beginning of the first volume? > > Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two > possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera > Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is > the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! Hazon Ovadiah on the Haggada (note 8 on page 55 of the 5739 edition) brings some of the same sources, without so many rashei teivot: Shu"t Zera Emet helek 3 (helek Orah Hayyim siman 48) http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=742&st=&pgnum=122 Hukkat Hapesah siman 453 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7855&st=&pgnum=172 But as far as I can tell none of the sources are directly addressing the question of an Ashkenazi cooking kitniot in his own house, as opposed to being invited to a Sephardi. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 14:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 17:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: On Areivim, in the thread "kitniyot", R' Ben Waxman wrote: > It doesn't make sense to me that the only holiday in which > the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor has become so > divisive that people would consider not eating with family. My guess is that "the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor" is a reference to how the Korban Pesach must be eaten. I certainly can't argue with that, but there is much more to this story. The Pesach 5776 issue of YU's "Torah To-Go" has an article titled " Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach" (the url is too long; just google the title and you'll find it) by Rabbi Yona Reiss, who writes: > The late Belzer Rebbe (Rav Aharon Rokeach zt"l) brings a > different source for the custom of not eating in others' > homes on Pesach, noting that only with respect to Shavuot > and Sukkot does the Torah mention the notion of rejoicing > together with others (Devorim 16:11, 16:14), but not with > respect to Pesach. Therefore the scriptural implication > is that on Pesach there may be a basis for parties to > refrain from joining each other for their meals. BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 19:38:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:38:35 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> `On the matter of Gebrochts, R?MG Rabi wrote in Issue 43 > Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to > make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not > a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. > > RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on > the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. > and in Issue 44 > May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a > custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - > as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. Mori V?Rabbi R? Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to eat soft matzot. The Ramah quotes the minhag that the matzos should be thinner than an etzba ...the soft matzos are thinner just like what color you have on the poroches is not a minhag, it is a matter of taste. Not every little sneeze is considered a minhag. However, if a person descends from chassidishe families and they have a minhag not to eat gebrokts *unless someone should pasken for him that this is a minhag shtus or a minhag b'taus, it would not even help to make a Hatoras nidorim*. Hatoras nidorim for a minhag only works if it is a *personal* minhag. The baal ha'neder has to request from the beis din the ha'tora. *If an entire community has a minhag, you have to get the entire kehilla to be matir the neder. One member of the community cannot be matir the neder on his own*. Just like if a person decides that he does not want to wait six hours between milchig and fleishig, he cannot be matir the neder, *he* is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years ago when the matzohs were much thicker. The concept of dovor sh'bminyan, etc. that even if one lives in a generation when the reason for the takanah no longer applies, the takanah is still binding, only applied to takonos d'rabbonon and *does not apply to minhogim*. The Ramah in his teshuvos writes like this and rashi in the first perek in Beitza writes the same. If I am not mistaken, I think the very last teshuva in Achiezer volume 3 by r. chaim ozer writes the same.? I conclude that we should be much more careful before attempting to extrapolate from Poskim of the enormous stature of Mori V?Rabbi. Dr. Isaac Balbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 22:01:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:01:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Best, Meir G. Rabi On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah > wrote: > : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the > illustration > : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in > force > : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] > > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza > on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for > me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable > hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:28:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:28:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically. And after the kitniyos were cooked in it the issur is automatically batel; the taam of kitniyos in the walls is surely less than 50%! -- 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 Sun May 1 21:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5726D8FF.6020709@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 05:48 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this > way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is > especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. I believe it got started because on Pesach there are so many different standards that it's often difficult to be sure that this is the case. Even if the host has more chumros than the guest, they may be different ones, and there will be something the guest doesn't eat and the host does. Detailed inquiry about these matters may be embarrassing. If the guest is certain that the host's standards are as strict or stricter than his own in all matters, then AFAIK the minhag doesn't apply. -- 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 Mon May 2 03:42:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160502104240.GB10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:01:51PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza : > on Pesach.... :> no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Well it doesn't need to be. Topics drift. However, I would ask whether RHS would compare Ashkenazi matzah styles to fashion rather than minhag if he could not prove there was a time when Ashkenazim too used soft matzos. You were using his idea as an example of minhag requiring a halachic foundation, that the risk gebrochts avoids be a real one. I don't see that. (It would also do wonders to qitniyos if that question were admissible.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:48:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:38:35PM +1000, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Mori V'Rabbi R' Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) : "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to : eat soft matzot.... : he is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to : say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years : ago when the matzohs were much thicker...." Why quote RTG when the Pischei Teshuvah said it first? OTOH, in the same generation, the SA haRav says that gebrochts only makes sense *after* we started counting kneading time toward the 18 min. And as a pragmatic matter, they both were very likely part of the same change in matzah-making norms. (If you have less time to bake matzos now that kneading ate up some of the time, you need thinner matzos.) I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old could the minhag have been? And if so, could RTG's theory be correct even in our day? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:51:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:51:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 05:12:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:12:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I saw somewhere that ein veatlim issur lechatchila doesnt apply to minhagim. Question: can one cook gebrochs on the 7th day of Pesach for the 8th day (for those who dont eat gebrochs 7 days). This was particularly relevant this year when the 8th day was shabbat. --------------------------------- On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 04:52:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57273F64.2010405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:51 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. > > : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're > : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste > : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... > > To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing > something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior > reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. This should be obvious, because if it were not so then it would always be forbidden to cook kitniyos, or anything else that is batel berov, even in keilim designated for this. -- 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 Mon May 2 04:57:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572740B0.9050306@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:48 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's > theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not > causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because > the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- > their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is > no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old > could the minhag have been? It wasn't even a generational change. The Alter Rebbe says it was only "these last twenty years or more", i.e. within his own memory. -- 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 Mon May 2 07:02:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 10:02:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:12 AM 5/2/2016, R. Akiva Miller wrote: >BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a >question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have >legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 07:28:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 08:28:08 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Old French In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at May 2, 2016 03:12:46 am Message-ID: <14621956880.190dB.12358@m5.shachter> > I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to > have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According > to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in > French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be > transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than > Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when > they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on > an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the > focus on the experiential story. > But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After > explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes > (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in > ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for > Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." The French word for "step" is "pas". In Rashi's time the 's' was pronounced. That gives you the first two consonants of the p-s-x root. The third consonant is an aspirate which, although it never drops out in inflected forms like the h does, might still be considered dispensible by an aspirational (sorry, I couldn't resist) etymologist willing to cut corners. It is a bogus albeit tempting etymology, like the ones you see in Hirsch. > A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been > inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but > that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the > question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How > do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? > And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? I can't tell you how the French of Rashi's time referred to Pesax. There are no French translations of the Hebrew Scriptures dating to then. The French Jews probably said "Pesach". That's what Yiddish speakers say today and I have no reason to think that their ancestors did any differently. French Jews nowadays -- who speak, by and large, French, although there are some who speak Arabic among themselves -- also say "Pesach", usually. Sometimes they say "Paque" (circumflex accent on the 'a' deliberately omitted because the Avodah digest software chokes on it, which is unfortunate, because the circumflex, which always indicates a missing 's', would be highly informative if you could see it), which is the correct French word, but it is rare for them to do so. I don't like saying "Paque" because it is also the French word for "Easter" and thus evokes a disagreeable sense of linguistic imperialism, even though the imperialism is almost certainly operating in the other direction here, I would think -- taking a Hirschian risk here, but there are worse people to emulate -- that the French word for "Easter" obviously comes from p-s-x. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:26:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:26:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tenets of faith Message-ID: > (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R > Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes > that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT > actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, > one way or the other.) Raavad : Born : 1125, Narbonne, France Died : 1198, Vauvert, France R, Moshe ben Chasdai Taku: 1250-1290 CE So Raavad couldn't have referred to R Taku -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 08:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57276FE3.4040104@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 08:12 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. Why does it need to be hefsed merubeh. Mechiras chometz is 100% valid, and everyone is entitled to rely on it no matter how easy it would be not to. If people want to be machmir for themselves that's very nice but they have no right to expect other people to follow their crazy chumros, any more than they follow those of other people. > OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. > Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the > supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? It seems to me that this attitude rests on a fujndamental amhoratzus: the idea that chametz she'avar alav hapesach is an inherent issur, an issur cheftza, so that if you hold for some reason that mechiras chometz is somehow flawed then you must hold that to the same extent the food sold is tainted. But chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a kenas on the owner for deliberately or negligently transgressing Bal Yera'eh Uval Yimatzei. Therefore even if you don't wish to rely on mechiras chametz, and destroy all your own chametz rather than sell it, the shopkeeper is not obligated to share your crazy chumra, and when he sold his chametz you must admit that he did so beheter gamur. If so, he doesn't deserve a kenas, so his chametz remains permitted even to you. -- 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 Mon May 2 10:03:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:03:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X isn't good enough". Ben On 5/2/2016 2:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store > can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are > communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these > contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel > its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:35:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim Message-ID: R Isaac, Please provide the references for the Shut Ramah and the Rashi in the first Perek Beitza. As for the Achiezer, that quite clearly supports the assertion that ONLY if the practice of not being MeNaker the hind-quarters is associated with a Halacha can it have any sort of binding power. It is truly confounding to see some people asserting the views of various Rabbanim without ever finding it necessary to actually do more than tell a story or tell us that the Posek said "it" to a friend or "it" was heard directly. For example we just had someone quote RHS saying a Halacha from the Rama, which the Rama does NOT say - this seriously undermines the credibility. Neither should we accept the report that RHS Paskened that those who do not eat Gebrochts require a Pesak that it is a Shtus because Hatarah does not work since a community has followed this practice, and the entire kehilla requires Hatarah. That's like an entire Kehilla following the practice of using royal blue for the Paroches. Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation, is a Dovor ShaBeMinyan, is pretty close to fantasy. Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from stories and hearsay from Poskim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:53:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502165329.GE14957@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:29AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from : stories and hearsay from Poskim. Are you REALLY saying that RIB should not accept an answer he personally received from his own rebbe? Or that we shouldn't accept that he can quote that answer verbatum, albeit with a "(emphasis is mine)"? If that's not sufficient evidence of a person's position, no quote on the list works, and we might as well shut down. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 10:37:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:37:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502173731.GF14957@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:12:10PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can : sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that : don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? Don't buy all chameitz that has been sold, or all chameitz that was "sold" by a store than then proceeded to leave it on the shelves and sell individually over Pesach? The latter is the nearest I've seen in my experience to such communities. After all, it's more ready to conclude that the initial sale of all chameitz was a meaningless asmachta, and not a real sale than it is to conclude the storeowners were selling someone else's merchandise and stealing the profits. But if you mean that people aren't supposed to buy properly sold chameitz, yes that makes no sense -- the storeowner still suffers a hefsed merubah, just days later. In any case, I do not think we still hold that mechiras chameitz requires the hefsed to be merubah. OTOH, it's more than merely a "crazy chumerah", as Zev puts it. According to the Bach (OC 448 "ve'im") mechiras chameitz of the sort where nothing actually is moved to space the nakhri already owns was originally promulgated as a widespread practice specifically for "yayin saraf" dealers, and only because they can't move their full merchandise. (The actual mechanism is in the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6.) Resisting growth of a heter to include boxes we could just throw into the trunk of our car is quite different than "crazy chumerah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:24:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:24:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" mindset). Ben On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus > standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the > would-be guest"? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 01:03 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the > custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after > Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X > isn't good enough". 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how silly you think their reason. 2. As far as I'm concerned the "baked after Pesach" stickers are merely an indication that the product is fresh. -- 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 Mon May 2 12:21:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:21:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> <57279663.5050102@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727A8CE.4040308@zahav.net.il> From: Eli Turkel via Areivim > The following is probably mostly for Israel MO and based on observations > and not statistics > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article by > a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see below) may apply). The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev Shabbat: 1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). 2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza 3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is practiced). So what is the difference in this case? Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? On 5/2/2016 8:03 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how > silly you think their reason. Of course you can't. However, community leaders can decide what message to transmit. I heard Rav Amar state in the strongest terms that there is no benefit to buying chameitz products from a non-Jew (instead of from a Jew who sold his chameitz). He also discouraged looking for the "baked after Pesach" label. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:05:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:05:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! -- 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 Mon May 2 11:21:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279A8F.5020203@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 02:24 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus >> standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >> would-be guest"? > In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this > chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they > didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate > their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at > least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are > (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" > mindset). 1. There's a lot more to standards, especially on Pesach, than which hechsherim one trusts. You might trust more hechsherim than your relatives do, but not use some product from *any* hechsher that they do use, or have some practise at home that they don't. 2. If you are indeed sure that you are not more machmir than them, then the custom of not mixing would not apply in that specific case. The minhag is subject to the guest's discretion, not the host's; all it demands of the hosts is not to take offence. -- 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 Mon May 2 11:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 04:58:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R'MG Rabi has incorrectly assumed that I heard or similar, the words I QUOTED from Mori VRabbi Rav Hershel Schachter. As a rule when I write that it is a quote, it is a quote. I am an academic. In fact, it was an email directly to me verbatim, which I received after Pesach from Mori VRabbi. Again, it is wrong to make suppositions. I did not provide any name in my question to him as that is entirely irrelevant. Regarding your substantive question for the exact sources etc I will ask, however, he is a very busy person effectively also the lone Senior Posek for OU (has Rav Belsky a'h been replaced?) and RIETS as well as his daily shiurim at RIETS and being Rosh Yeshiva and Kollel etc and you will appreciate that his answer to the query may not be immediate. Dr Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 13:07:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:07:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727B36A.7000303@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 03:22 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > On May 3, 2016 4:05 AM, "Zev Sero" > wrote: >> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: >>> Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation >> The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! > Correct, it's predicated upon factually incorrect information However on being challenged he refused to back this claim up. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 14:41:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:41:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can > indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. Zvi Lampel (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) [The attached PDF was identical to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/51283 -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 15:43:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 00:43:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: RAM mentioned that: > last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining > the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and > explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on > Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an > expression of stepping." ... and asked: > How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 > years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? As you yourself wrote earlier in that post, the French call the holiday paques (with an accent circonflexe on the a, but that renders badly on Avodah). It is derived from the Latin, like the Spanish pascua, too. I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke of genius that serves its purpose well. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 22:27:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 01:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: <64eee8.a68b9f3.445990cc@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach >....Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. ... [--RAM] And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL >>>>>> You don't inspect the host's kitchen because you don't eat in his house! That's the point! Chassidim and others have this minhag of "not mishing" on Pesach --" not mixing" our meals with other families. This custom of not eating at other people's houses on Pesach has its source in this, precisely: the desire not to insult anyone, not to embarrass anyone and not to hurt anyone's feelings on this of all holidays, the one holiday when we are all more careful than usual about what we will and will not eat. The "unfriendly" chassidishe minhag has a very friendly corollary, at least in chutz la'aretz where we have two days of yom tov: On the last day of Pesach we /davka/ go out to eat or invite others to our homes and make a point of "mishing." If you don't have anyone over for a meal at least you go out visiting other people's homes in the afternoon, and make a point of eating something there. It's sort of like a sukka hop, you try to visit a few different homes and also host a few different people in your home. At least this was the minhag in my family growing up and among the people I knew in my youth. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 23:35:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >>Two bundles of goods >>may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. >>So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God >>really want that? [--RDR] Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such natural evils. Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Properly speaking "evil" only refers to something that has a moral dimension. The question of "Why does G-d allow evil?" has an obvious answer -- to allow scope for bechira, for free will. That doesn't fully answer the question, of course. We see many cases where He thwarts the nefarious plots of our enemies, which leaves us with aching questions in those cases when He seemingly stands by and does /not/ thwart their plots -- the Holocaust being the most wrenching example. There are a lot of answers but perhaps none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be called evil at all (unless you want to impute evil motives to the Borei c'v!). Rather, here the question is "Why is there suffering in the world?" This is a different question from the question of why does He allow evil people to commit evil deeds. Again there are many different answers, some of which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as well as Divine reasons we can't think of. "Evil" and "suffering" can overlap, as when evil people cause other people to suffer, but they are still two different categories. BTW the idea that a benevolent G-d "couldn't" or "wouldn't" do this or that is an arrogant and ignorant idea, the product of puny human minds. And compared to our Creator, even the most brilliant human mind is puny. Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I did ask Him to take them away. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 04:10:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: I wrote: > This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of > the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? > > Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of > the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? #1) In the article cited, much was made of an incident when Rava went to visit Rav Nachman, who was Rava's rebbe, and was thus presumably at least as strict as Rava. (See the article for more information, and for various ways of understanding that gemara.) #2) I, personally, am not very knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of this practice, such as who follows it, or to what extent they follow it. That's whay I can't answer your question by pointing to people who won't even eat in their parents' homes; I have no idea whether or not this practice really goes that far. HOWEVER, I do presume that the author of the article is familiar with these things, and near the beginning of the article, he writes: > perhaps the most intriguing of Pesach stringencies is the widespread > minhag not to eat anyone else's food during the Pesach holiday, even > if the other person keeps their chumros. It seems from this that Rabbi Reiss *is* aware of people who avoid eating other food, even when they do know that their standards have not been otherwise lessened. There can be many ways of knowing this, without "make[ing] an inspection of the host's kitchen and review[ing] all of the products he uses ... insulting to the host", such as when they are close family members, or friends, and/or the host actually invites the guest to examine his products and practices. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 06:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:43:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah Message-ID: The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon are factually correct? Those I have communicated with seem to be incapable or unwilling. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:20:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:43:08PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, : anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon : are factually correct? Which fact are you not sure of: 1- That until a couple of decades before the teshuvah people did not count kneading time toward the kedei hilukh mil, and then people (at least around Easter Europe) did? 2- That rushing the kneading because it now has to fit within the mil along with baking time would increase the chance that there was unkneaded flour on or in the matzah? 3- That the Baal haTanya is brighter than you, and should be second-guessed with care? Even if someone known to be brilliant makes a mistake, you know it's not likely to be a trivial one. 4- Or, the original topic.... That I would find it unlikely that RMF would consider a minhag endorsed by the SA haRav should be dropped without very strong motive? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:28:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:28:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products; e.g, my wife makes mayonnaise for Pesach, although I no longer churn butter, as he did -- yeridas hadoros): I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.. I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no alternative. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:40:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503144014.GA18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:43:39AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also : be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that : gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the : meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke : of genius that serves its purpose well. Much of what gets called "chassidishe Torah" is similar -- it's not a real answer to the question posed, but it is real Torah. Presented in a way that makes a roshem on a listener. As for etymologies, I think there is also a gray area. "Yarmulka" is a term in a number of Slavic languages for whatever cap the locals wore. But if no one had created the folk etymology of "yarei Malka", would the term have become as widespread or as long-lived as it did? Historically, the name Shneiur is from Signor or perhaps Spanish Sen~or, or most likely the original Latin "Senior", which means "Zaqein", with all the implications of sagicity. But I think more Shneiurs today are named for the shnei or of Shabbos licht. Especially since that's why R Aharon and Rn Rivqah Chanah Perel Kotler chose the name for their son, born Friday evening. (BTW, RSK was a dapper looking man in his Chevron days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Kotler#/media/File:Rabbi_Shneur_Kotler.jpg Found it while looking to confirm the story about when he was born.) OTOH, Marche-shvan vs "Mar Cheshvan" has halachic import, and one cannot let the folk etymology cause people to write the wrong thing on a gett; nor to forget that the month names were from galus Bavel, and not related to the Hebrew word "mar". But in general, folk etymologies too have causitive power. (It's just that in my last example, I think we need to resist it.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:09:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:09:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> References: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160503150952.GB18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:38AM -0400, Rn Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without : Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents : for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. : : But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects : and other such natural evils. : I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Yes, but fixing my misspeech doesn't change my point. To apply the correction: Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. : none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that : we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. Does that necessarily mean we cannot know His Goals either, or only how they play out in practice? IOW, perhaps we can conclude that HYashem wants a world of hatavah, including being meitiv us with the joy of being able to be meitivim ourselves, without knowing why that means He would choose providing Tov in one case and why He left us on our own in another. : The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be : called evil at all... True, but if we correct my language, then the question too needs correction: How is the existence of *suffering* consistent with the Existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent G-d? : which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of : the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as : well as Divine reasons we can't think of. Including free will. For all I know, Hashem lets certain diseases foster because He Wants to give us the opportunity to cure them. That does not address His Choice of victims, though. I suggested four answers to theodicy, keneged arba banim: The chakham doesn't really answer it, he instead asks "How does Hashem want me to respond?" The rasha gets yisurim as punishment. In the Haggadah we tell him that its not the tragedy that is leading him to rejecting G-d its his rejection of G-d that led him to the tragedy. The tam gets yisurim shel ahavah. He didn't do anything wrong, but he is shaken out of the rut that keeps him from trying to be a chakham. And the she'eino yodea' lish'ol gets the life he does because, well, there are times where the thing we want is a greater nisayon, than the situation we find tragic. And if we are not up to the challenge, if its a test that we couldn't pass, G-d doesn't make us face it. I say it better and with more backing at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pesach-5761-the-four-sons-confront-tragedy But my point in my earlier post wasn't whether or not theodicy is answeable, but that the issue of theodicy was simply ignored by the philosophy professor giving the online course I pointed to. Which, in turn, was why I thought that a translation of something R Sherky said to university students (repeated from Twitter) requires more examiunation of the original. To repeat (since I find this topic more useful than trying to answer tzadiq vera lo): : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? "Can't find"? This professor of philosophy missed a huge theological topic. My guess is that "lo nimtza" was translated overly literally and RYS was replying to questioned for which no answer exists. And yes, someone should be intellectually honest enough to give up his religion if it really were disproven. An impossible hypothetical (we know a Torah-follower's religion won't ever really be disproven, beyond minor misunderstood peratim); so not very meaningful, but not something it would shock me to hear a rav say. : Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. : But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, : a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, : and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I : really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained : from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I : did ask Him to take them away. I said something similar recently about "lir'os es atzmo ke'ilu hu yatza miMitzrayim" . I wrote about how the RBSO put into process even before I was born events that caused my lymphoma to be diagnosed while still in stage 1, BH and ba"h. A rare form of lymphoma that (as of 2010) had only afflicted two other people, both rescue workers who helped look for their comrade's remains in the weeks after 9/11. Here's just the post-script: To be intellectually honest: The story loses some of its impact if you think about Office Ryan and Firefighter Endicott's families, who lost their love ones specifically because they were determined to give other rescue workers' families the closure of being able to make a funeral. On 9/11 itself, for every story retold of someone who was spared being there because they were out doing some mitzvah is a story of someone who seems no less deserving who was killed in the attack. Every life has its own story. I cannot know G-d's calculus in my own, never mind in others'. But the mystery of tzadiq vera lo (why the righteous suffer) doesn't free me from feeling grateful for the good in my life (hakaras hatov) and feeling thankful to the ones -- or in this case the One -- who provide it (hoda'ah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503151406.GC18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:28:43PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which : had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products... : I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree : of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted : practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no : alternative. Which is the only way the minhag could be non-offensive. I am reminded of the rav who establishes a policy not to eat in any mispallel's home, so that no one is offended by their rabbi having to judge their home's kashrus as insufficient. Still, I think it would be elegant if people who have the minhag of misht zikh nisht adopt the minhag of Maimouna. We might not be able to eat together on Pesach, but let's all share the simchas Isru Chag! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 10:08:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160503170842.GD18204@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:46:56PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law : of the excluded middle. : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle However, not only does RYBS's discussion of bein hashemashos really rely on defying the law of contradiction by saying "both" rather than the excluded middle's "something in between", so does his invocation of "almanas isa" and "isa lashon safeiq hu" -- safeiq is a dough. For that matter, the same could be said of erev (although RYBS didn't) -- an irbuvia of day and night. So I think that RYBS actually meant that halakhah had no law of contradiction. Which may be a consequence of allowing middle values between yes and no, I haven't found it spelled out anywhere. BTW, the notion that a tenai needs to be said in both positive and negative is also relevant, as only saying "I promise to do X if Y" is insufficient if Y could be both true and false or somewhere between true and false -- in those cases, whether or not I commit to doing X is ambiguous. Eg "I promise to do X if the next person to enter the room is tall" would lead to a she'eilah if the person walking in is a 5'11" American man (where Google the average is 5'10"). "Tall" is a non-boolean predicate -- a person could be somewhat tall, and not just because it's a matter of opinion, but between there is a gray area about the bottom of the set. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:19:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 01:19:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I am seeking the facts that the Teshuvah employs to support a Halachic ruling that Gebrochts is Assur. so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - 1] until a couple of decades beforehand kneading time was not included in the kedei hilukh mil time 2] this reduced production time created a credible risk of flour remaining in the baked Matzah? I am nowhere near the lofty heights of the BaAl HaTanya. But I am commanded, as is all of BNY, to learn and question and as R Ch Voloshiner says [Paskens?] we are not permitted to accept a ruling or a Peshat if there are questions that remain unanswered. It seems that we are having a dispute about RMF arguing with a Minhag endorsed by the SA HaRav. I propose that since Gebrochts is without Halachic foundation, it does not require Hatarah. Others think this is impossible since the SH HaRav endorses Gebrochts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:55:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:55:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160503185522.GA28828@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:19:27AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 . (Same as when we had this same conversation 3 years ago.) Twenty years is mentioned on 476, the paragraph that beging "Ve'af" -- "...ad shemiqarov zeh esrim shanah o yotseir, nishpatah zehirus zu beYisrael qedoshim, lemaheir me'od me'od belishah..." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 20:12:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5728E9FB.8010609@zahav.net.il> A close friend told me that he his uncle (and family) would come to his father's home for seder (in Poland before the war), bring his own food and table cloth, and by doing this was considered to be meiqil. Ben On 5/3/2016 4:28 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on > Pesach, unless there was no alternative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 09:42:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jonathan Traum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> Message-ID: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> > Lisa Liel wrote: >>> According to >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >>> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's >> berakhah >> of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw >> from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? I can't say with any authority what was in Yaakov Avinu's thoughts there, but lion imagery in the ancient world certainly does seem to predate him. On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > ... > But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's > question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves > are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The king of the wild animals is the lion..." Jonathan Traum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:12:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah Message-ID: In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on the other. Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from joining together for a meal 2) RSZA always took simchat shabbat/yomtov into account in his piskei halacha. A rabbi who is machmir not to allow using a shabbat elevator may be forcing someone who lives on the 30th floor to spend every shabbat without a minyan and without any company and certainly without oneh shabbat. RSZA was an advocate of tzomet because he felt it important to help especially the disadvantaged. Thus, he felt it important to invent a wheelchair good for invalids that can be used on shabbat 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also important even when it relies on DNA evidence. This is just a sampling of many areas where some poskim try and be conservative while RMA insists that just blindly doing the old thing is not necessarily the conservative or macmir way. His favorite analogy is a group of people who live in the tropics and wear swimwear. Because of circumstances they move to a colder area. There now arises a dispute should they continue to wear swimwear because thats what their ancestors wore or do they change to warmer clothing. The change is also meant to be conservative: the ancestors wore clothing that matched the climate and so they should wear clothing that match the clothing. The reformists change clothing simply because they dont care what the ancestors wore -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 13:15:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 16:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> Message-ID: <572906F0.5020105@sero.name> On 05/03/2016 12:42 PM, Jonathan Traum via Avodah wrote: > On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> >But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's >> >question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves >> >are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? > ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The > king of the wild animals is the lion..." Yes, it does now. As the result of this discussion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 14:45:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:45:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <000801d1a585$16ecdbf0$44c693d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RET wrote > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article > by a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel And RBW replied: >RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see >below) may apply). >The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev >Shabbat: >1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). >2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza >3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. >Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. >Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is >practiced). So what is the difference in this case? >Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? Of course, this is just a reiteration of the discussion we had last year - here is my post. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n069.shtml#10 The positions cited here appear to be taken directly from the Rav Poelim. See the citation there regarding the issur of handling food on fast days. >Ben Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 06:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos Message-ID: RBen Waxman cited the following: "This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issue." Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 05:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:04:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] women cutting hair in the omer Message-ID: I just saw that ROY paskens that women are allowed to cut their cut during the sefirah. Does anyone know if this is widely accepted? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 14:43:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:43:42 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Avoid situations that embarrass In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline. A story that displays a slightly different perspective - the visitor who insisted on drinking his tea in the host's Succah when the host who was not enjoying the best of health was entertaining the guest in his house. The host accompanied his guest explaining to the now uncomfortable guest, I am exempt from the mitzvah of Succah but obligated in the mitzvah of Hachnossas Orchim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 17:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160505004747.GB22983@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:34:09PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The : Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish : Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside : world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to : others subunits (e.g. ethnic). I am curious to see that article, because I would have thought the causality was the reverse. The Rama knew of an Ashkenazi mesorah that had numerous differences with Sepharadi pesaq since well before the SA. It was on that basis thyat he was able to categorize the SA as "their" rulings. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 11th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 strict justice? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 04:50:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:50:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would > be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in > the universe at all. > > But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. > Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence not a real good at all. But suppose we leave the world of mussar, where my goal is to grow spiritually by becoming a better person, and improving the relationship between myself and Hashem. Instead, let's focus on getting more social. It's not that I want to improve myself, but that I want to do things that other people will benefit and get pleasure from. In a world where people are busy interacting, but the laws of nature prohibit Nazis, the problem is not that good doesn't *exist*. The problem is that good isn't recognized or appreciated. Everyone is always doing nice things to everyone else, so much so that the beneficiaries don't notice it. Not because they are ungrateful, but because they literally don't notice it -- they have nothing to compare it to. This is how the world runs. What else might one expect? And THAT's why there is "no real good in the universe at all." Ad caan, RMB's reisha. But this only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Evil -- or at least the potential for it -- is necessary so that we can appreciate the good. What about congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering? My first reaction is to give the same answer as above: No one will appreciate good health unless bad health is a possibility. And then I feel ashamed of my insensitivity, my hardheartedness, my callousness. How can I not cry for the babies struggling in pain, just so I can score some points in this discussion? But, truth be told, that insensitivity reared its head many paragraphs ago, when we first contemplated "a world without Nazis". Are the victims of "naturally caused suffering" entitled to more consideration than the victims of Nazi-caused suffering? I don't think so. My heart goes out to both of them, to all of them, and I feel guilty, wondering about where my heart is when I thank G-d for the good He has given me. I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 20:02:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 05:02:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> On 5/3/2016 8:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on > the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on > the other. > > Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) > > 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be > machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without > kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from > simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from > joining together for a meal. If the parents of a Sefardi son in law > can provide him with halaq meat 52 weeks out of a year, he can deal > with their rice issue one week a year. I know that I sound like a broken record but . . . We have a long history of chumrot in kashrut and a long history of dealing with them. Kintiyot can be dealth with, halachakly and culinarily, just like almost all of these issues. Having an in law with food allergies is going to present much more of a challenge to a host than having an in law who doesn't eat rice. > > > 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most > halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is > overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity > might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone > agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA > points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as > inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also > important even when it relies on DNA evidence. > For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:08:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:08:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: yom hazikaron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the importance of standing during the siren on yom hazikaron by Rav Stav (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=4174 on aveilut vs chol hamoed during sefira by Rav Cherlow (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=5629 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:20:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 18:20:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572B72D1.2030303@zahav.net.il> Rav Tawil was basing himself on a psak given by Rav Ovadia Yosef, tz"l, which is summarized here: http://halachayomit.co.il/he/Default.aspx?HalachaID=3938 KT Ben On 5/4/2016 3:26 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > ? ? ? Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet > repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, > even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would > seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. > ? > EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:15:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:15:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben _____________________________________________ IMHO DNA is a real Pandora's box which it seems that poskim are taking an approach that to an outsider might be viewed as pragmatic (vs intellectually mandated) by accepting it as a secondary sirgn but not primary so as to specifically not get into the parentage issue. What will happen when everyone's dna/genetic map is available feom a simple stick test? 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:24:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:24:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1255?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=96_=EE=F1=E5?= =?windows-1255?b?+OQg4fnh5fIg4Of4IPTx5w==?= Message-ID: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160505154013.GF22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:50:01AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change : anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics : categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind : to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. I am not in your target audience, as I am happy with my current answer and thus probably too closed minded on this question to be influenced, but... : RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he : free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then : whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not : the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence : not a real good at all... Not my intent. Let me explain what I was trying to say from a different direction. What makes free will possible? The fact that we can think about thinking. Bechira chofshi and being aware of one's own thoughts and feelings (or a subset of them) go hand-in-hand. When we think about and make decisions based on that metacognizent "inputs" we are able to change how we think and truly exercise BC. I think this underlize REED's concept of a nequdas habechirah. It is only at the "battlefront" between two warring desires/drives that BC comes into play because it is only there that the decision happens slow even to occur consciously. You might recall that when we discussed tza'ar baalei chaim (in at least 2 iterations), I suggested that while animals feel pain, they have no "I" about which they could think "I am in pain". Pain, but without a critical element that turns it into true suffering. I gave a neurological argument -- animals lack the part of prefrontal cortext we use to do metacognizance, so why assume they can? Maybe when it comes to animals, the Behaviorists are right. But I also made a hashkafic argument. If a thinking being could be aware of the thinking itself, and think about thinking, it would have free will. Since only people have BC, which in the opinion of many (including the Meshekh Chokhmah) is that very tzelem E-lokim, they can't be self-aware of their thought. Pain as a stimulus away from something, but not "Oy am I in pain!" of true suffering on a human level. So I was making a philosophical point about the goodness. Not that it lacks worth of purpose, but the ability to enjoy good and the ability to make decisions go hand-in-hand. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:48:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:48:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160505154808.GG22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:02:38AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be : declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth : it? Mamzeirus is not a good example for a general discussion of chumeros. Kivan denitma nitma. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that we are to ignore most sefeiqos -- safeiq mamzer in a yichus-ly kosher community, or a mamzer in a safeiq community. (See for a nice discussion.) I think it would be assur to check mamzeirus using DNA, except in those few cases where we otherwise are chosheish for the safeiq anyway, like a shetuqi or asufi. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim Message-ID: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> H/T Mosaic Magazine See : Bible Odyssey Who Were the Sadducees? by Michael L. Satlow ... The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq, the name of the high priest at the time of King David (1Kings 1:39). Later sources also link the Sadducees to the priesthood (for example, Acts 4:1). However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. In the uproar that ensued, a Sadducee convinced Hyrcanus to abandon the Pharisees for the Sadducees. Whether true or not, this story might point to the Sadducees' origin as a political party allied with the Hasmoneans. Josephus tantalizingly mentions that the Sadducees ascribe authority to Scripture, not to the ancestral traditions handed down by the Pharisees: ... I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion i a dichotomy. Also, what kind of news is in that the Chashmonaim were in league with the Tzeduqim? Regardless of Josephus's story, why wouldn'tthe family that held the power of both Kohein Gadol and Melekh want to deprecate any form of Judaism that would make them share power with the rabbinate? Can the more historically informed please comment if this post is a non-story (which finding it in Mosaic Magazine led me to doubt) or what the chiddush is here? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:55:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:55:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=E2=80=93_=D7=9E?= =?utf-8?b?16HXldeo15Qg15HXqdeR15XXoiDXkNeX16gg16TXodeX?= In-Reply-To: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> References: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <572B7B0D.3050906@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 10:24 AM, Lawrence Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see > http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e 1) Every Ashkenazi siddur says that in summer we say vesein brocho and (in places where it's customary) morid hatol, and in winter we say tal umotor and mashiv horuach. Since we are now saying the former, it is summer, and wishing each other a good summer is therefore appropriate. 2) There is no pressure on anyone to bake a shlissel challah. The blogger is engaging in a fantasy so he can rant about it. Rather, every year we are subjected to ranting from opponents of this custom who can't bear the thought that some people do have it. The blogger has his mesorah, and good on him for adhering to it, but it is irrelevant to the vast majority of us who do not share it. Those who don't have this particular custom of are free not to do it, and nobody will denounce them for it; but they must have the same respect for those who do it, whether because their ancestors did it as far back as anyone knows, or because they heard about it last week and decided it sounded like a nice thing to do. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 10:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:19:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572B80AB.3050808@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 12:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. He was not accused of being a mamzer but a chalal, because his mother had once been kidnapped and was thus unfit to be married a kohen. We don't need to go to Josephus for this story, it's a braisa in Kiddushin 66a. > I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually > led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion > is a dichotomy. The article makes the same point: "In antiquity, there was no neat division between politics and religion". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 12:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:41:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <520b4de4-831a-8f00-6b0d-1cd935504656@starways.net> On 5/5/2016 7:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > See : ... > by Michael L. Satlow ... > ... > The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the > Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term > Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq... The myth that the Tzedukim got their name from Tzadok the Kohen Gadol has zero basis to it. Except maybe the quote from Acts, which has no weight. The origin of the Tzedukim appears in Avot d'Rabbi Natan, where we find that the eponymous Tzadok was one of the talmidim of Antigonus Ish Socho. > However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not > as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus > mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high > priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer]... Also, despite Josephus's claims, the accusation wasn't that he was a mamzer; it was that he was a chalal. The article is a non-story. Lisa [To be fair without bothering to post a full reply for something off-topic: The original had a word I wasn't comfortable repeating on-list, starts with a "b", so I assumed the usual back-translation to the Hebrew. I have no idea what Josephus actually wrote, nor do I expect a Xian to bother explaining chalal rather than use a general term for what used to be called an "illegitimate" child. So I don't know if it's Josephus's claims that's off or a miscommunication caused by my trying to be overly frummy. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:53:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know how you can say that. Admittedly, the Creator apparently wanted a world in which there are both Nazis /and/ birth defects, since that's the world He created. But there is a HUGE difference between the two -- between the pain caused by evil people through their own free will, and the suffering that occurs as the result of disease and other natural causes. One thought experiment will illustrate the difference. Imagine a mother whose child dies as the result of a birth defect. Let's even say the child dies after a period of pain and suffering. Now imagine another mother whose child dies because a Nazi snatched the child from her arms and killed the child in some sadistic way, in front of the mother's eyes. Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:29:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 06:29:53 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? or within it? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:22:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:22:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when > there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. > Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF > Every case is judged on its own. I was just an eid to a get of the sort, where certain kullot in the berurei sheimot were accepted because it was such a kind of get lechumra. In other situations, we may be quicker to allow a kitvu uttenu for a civil marriage divorce. As I said, every case is judged on its own. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:42:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:42:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrot Message-ID: In light of the comments of Rabbi Folger and others let me restate my opinion of chumrot. There are several levels of chumrot and kulot 1) The chumrah is personal and doesn't affect anyone else - perfectly OK but one shouldn't gloat or look down on those who don't accept the chumra 2) At the other extreme are things like monetary manners where every chumra for one side is a kula for the other side 3) For things in between one has to compare the chumra to the "price" being paid So for kitniyot - the prohibition is relatively mild but OTOH doing without the specific kitniyot is not a major deal either (in most cases) I personally get annoyed at husbands that won't carry (or push the carriage) even with an eruv but the wife does everything. I am not sure how much the women really volunteer. In any case the hardship is relatively mild (again in most cases) The harder cases are where the prohibition is more severe but the effects are more severe Examples from before include shabbat problems that might prevent one from leaving home every shabbat and ruining on a long term basis oneg shabbat. As Rabbi Folger points out various cases of gittin. Also cases involving DNA or other forms of controversial evidence. The main point R Avraham was making is that rabbis who take a "conservative: stance are not always being machmir since the effect on others may be severe. At times the more innovative approach may be the real conservative way. i.e. it saves the principle of the halacha rather than just some formality which is no longer relevant. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 07:59:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:59:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah Message-ID: RET wrote: > 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt > that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out > that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when > they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects > many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. Actually, that simply doesn't reflect the most widespread position on civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 05:34:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:34:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula Message-ID: <> Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one can't accept it in many other cases -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:14:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:14:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of > divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the > key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. > Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single > case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to > avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a > proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. > -- > Arie Folger, >> > chumrot that don't have side effects are fine. As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 16:29:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Schlissel Challah Message-ID: <20160506232927.GA27784@aishdas.org> Since everyone has to have a schlissel chalah post... Really I think it is about sources of yeast right after Pesach. There was no starter dough, so people would use beer foam. Beer foam yeast is too acrive for good dough. Fortunately, iron slows down yeast action. A key is a small convenient piece of iron to throw into the mix. But it is common for minhagim to be born from inventing reasons for things people already do. In this case... It relates to the key of rain and finances, described in Taanis 2, one of the three (or two of the four) keys that Hashem never delegates. If so, it is a reminder just as the wheat comes in, and. in the lands Ashkenazim were living in too. (The fresh grass which becomes a milk abundance just on time for Shavuos and Wittesmontag.) A reminder from Whom the spring wealth comes. And to thank Him accordingly, rather than to take credit. If so, ironically (for the naysayers), the custom is all about how wealth comes directly from G-d, not via angels, spiritual mechanisms, or tricks. Do you have a problem with dipping an apple in honey and other such simanei milsa of Rosh haShanah? Those too are symbols. The problem isn't with schlissel chalah. If people observed the custom for the kinds of reasons listed in this post, there would be nothing to object to. The problem I have is that it seems to have caught on beyond the original community because of people having magical thinking, trying to get HQBH to give them their wealth through segulah instead of (rather as inspiration for) the hard and long work of earning reward for being a better Jew. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 13th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 necessary for a good relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 14:26:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 00:26:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? Message-ID: I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). Shavua Tov, Hodesh Tov! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 19:49:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572EA93A.7030509@sero.name> On 05/07/2016 05:26 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). I am looking at a block of Tenuva salted butter, which bears the mehadrin hechsher of Tenuva's own rabbi, R Weitman, and also the hechsherim of the OU and Chug Chasam Sofer. I assume Chug Chasam Sofer is a mehadrin-only hechsher. Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk. It's also available in 10g and 200g with the mehadrin hechsher, and also in 10g and 100g with the hechsher of Badatz Edah Hacharedit. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=581 Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=582 However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to have this problem. http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/salted-butter http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/butter -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 21:35:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 07:35:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages > with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk... > > Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and > only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk... > > However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to > have this problem.... Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 22:00:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 01:00:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> On 05/08/2016 12:35 AM, Simon Montagu wrote: > > Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? Well, I don't see how it can be a halachic issue, since they do sell it with the mehadrin hechsher in the USA, to consumers whose kashrut standards are presumably the same those of Israeli mehadrin consumers. Nor, given the size and internal diversity of the Israeli mehadrin market, and its overlap with the USA one, can it plausibly be attributed to a cultural difference. What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available in 100g packs, in either country. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 8 20:36:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 06:36:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> Message-ID: <87b8dde5-91ed-0b4e-3d8f-268d85c4c13f@starways.net> On 5/8/2016 8:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available > in 100g packs, in either country. > The idea of salted butter was originally to be able to sell the butter longer. If the butter has gone off (rancid) a little, salting it hides that. So a lot of people refuse to buy salted butter, figuring that if it's unsalted, they *know* whether it's good or not, and they can always salt it themselves if they want. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 04:36:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:36:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RavSharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< ... Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. >>> The difference that I see, is that in one case the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards Hashem, and in the second case, the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards both Hashem and the Nazi. But as I understand this conversation, we are discussing theodicy, which is the question of "How can a good God allow such a thing to happen?" And in that regard I see no difference between the two cases. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 10:37:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160509173704.GA27325@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 05:41:13PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger :> The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can :> indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. : : I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... : where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in : fact it implies the opposite Then why would you think tht was the reference? Pesach 30 is where he discusses zeh le'umas zeh, so mybe they're talking about the implied lack of a law of contradiction? (Ie that creation comes in paradoxical pairs.) YOu are asking for a source for something I have been repeating since before its appearance in Avodah vol 1, something I learne from R' Aryeh Kaplan. Sources, even my notebook from those days, are not at hand. But I'm working on it -- al titya'esh. Actually, I am on the hunt for where I saw the point in seifer haHigayon. The Ramchal defined higayon as a tool the seikhel was given. I am just looking for where I found it explicit that logic was created for people. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 15:52:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi writes: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface > which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." > > May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? > > Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour > WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the kneading specifically. Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:02:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160510010206.GA9905@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 6:52pm EDT, R Akiva Miller: : I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then : flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, : I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the : kneading specifically. : Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? : I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 2:55pm EDT, I wrote: > Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos > Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 > . -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57313304.90006@sero.name> On 05/09/2016 06:52 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Teshuvah #6, in the Shu"t at the back of volume 6. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=486 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=487 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 20:09:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:09:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: Many thanks to R' Zev Sero and R' Micha Berger for sending me links to the HebrewBooks.org edition, and at almost the same instant. R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a > little flour on their surface which is a consequence > of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." I responded: > I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in > the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. > If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the > general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the > kneading specifically. I now suspect that the situation was a bit different than I had imagined. I would like to suggest that the matzos described by the Alter Rebbe had plain flour through and through, as a result of the dough being dry and hard, and difficult to knead, exactly as described. But the Rebbe complained only about the flour on the outside, and I suspect that this is because it presents a bigger halachic problem than the flour on the inside. I first got this feeling in the paragraph "V'hinei eineinu", though I can't point to any specific words where he might have said this. But in the paragraph "V'af d'haMagen Avraham", he is machmir on one who crumbles his matza into the soup, but he is meikil for one who puts matza balls into the soup. What I translated as "matza balls" are, more precisely in his words, "ground matza that they make into rounds (agulim)", and the room for leniency is because it can be judged to be a ta'aroves. I'm going into some detail here, because he is NOT talking about crumbling some matza into a dry bowl, which would contain a mixture of matza meal and flour, and the flour would lose its identity to the matza meal before it ever got wet. No, that's not what he is talking about. He makes explicit reference to these balls which were made previously, and were added to the soup afterward, I am at a loss to explain the advantage of these matza balls over one who crumbles his matza directly into the soup. The only advantage I see is that one who crumbles the matza into his soup is making chometz personally, whereas in the other case the chometz was made in the kitchen when the matza balls were fashioned. (Footnote 45 there might be saying something similar.) Be that as it may, it leads me to a very wild guess that when the dough is not kneaded well, it will have flour on the inside, and although one might think that this flour is subject to chimutz, the truth is that there is some room for leniency because that flour is batel to the matza itself. However, this leniency applies only to the flour inside the matza, and not to the flour on the outer surface of the matza. Again, this paragraph is only a wild guess that I offer to the group. (On a side point, I'd like to ask about the modern "hard (kasheh)" dough that the Alter Rebbe described. Why was it hard? I can understand spending less time kneading it so that it can be rushed into the oven, but the Rebbe seems to feel that the consistency of the dough changed too. Why would anyone think that using less water is a good idea? Kneading a bread dough is hard work, and it seems like common sense to me that if we want to knead it well, you'd use *more* water, not less. Does extra water accelerate the chimutz, independently of the temperature of that water?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 03:50:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:50:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach?" The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz that was sold to a goy in Israel because none of the hechsherim (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one is checking that it is true. See for example http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X9_D8LFI5O8/UWEoF_JIlgI/AAAAAAAAAc4/XDKyPFsMN7Q/s1600/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%94+%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8+%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.jpg Some people rely on checking product codes which tells them when the product was made. However, this is not that useful. All it says is that the product was made after Pesach. However, every Chometz product has chometz ingredients in it (at least flour which is most probably chometz because it was washed) and the consumer has no way of knowing when the chometz ingredients were made and who owned over them over Pesach. For example even if you only buy cookies that were made after Pesach you have no idea what flour was used. It is very possible/probable that the flour used to make the cookies was chometz and was sold for Pesach. Som people only eat things that were made with flour that was fround after Pesach. However there a problem with this as well. Flour in Israel is very low in gluten and therefore won't rise well unless gluten is added. All bakeries add gluten to the flour in all baked goods. There is no gluten produced in Israel, it is all imported mostly from Germany, France, and China. Gluten by definition is chamtez gamur . Because it needs to be imported gluten must be SOLD to a Goy over Pessach; unless the bakeries want to close shop for a few weeks waiting for a new shipment. Since they start making bread literally a few hours after Pesach is over they must be using gluten that they sold to a goy. Therefore, even if the bread says baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach, the gluten was most definitely sold and therefore you are relying on the sale to a goy. In other words they are pulling the wool over your eyes. They say that it was baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach but conveniently leave out the bit about gluten that was sold. (source http://www.bhol.co.il/9196/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.html ) In short, this is a chumra that makes people feel frum but has no basis in halacha and is in fact not really possible to keep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 04:13:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:13:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Message-ID: R' Elazar Teitz wrote: "I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.." On the other hand there is a famous story (printed in the Brisker Haggada and in HaRav MiBrisk) about the Brisker Rav visiting R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach in Vilna in 1941. The Brisker Rav thought that the sugar in Vilna had Kitniyos mixed in and therefore did not use it on Pesach. However, when the Brisker Rav visited R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach, R' Chaim Ozer served him tea with sugar which the Brisker Rav accepted and drank. Afterwards, someone (his son?) asked him why did he drink the tea with the sugar if there was a chashash of kitniyos in the sugar? He answered that not eating kitniyos is a minhag but being mevaze a talmid chacham is an issur d'oraysa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 08:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:52:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573203A1.3050503@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz > that was sold to a goy in Israel//because none of the hechsherim > (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) > hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when > things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the > manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one > is checking that it is true. Since it's only a chumra, why not just trust the manufacturer? Most manufacturers are honest, and if you happen to come across one who isn't you haven't really lost anything. In any case, while there are of course those who look for the "baked after Pesach" label for kashrus reasons, I assume that *most* people who look for this label do so as a guarantee of freshness. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 12:20:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 22:20:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:35:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:35:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f382b3d9eba7690e3482efc18d4e958@aishdas.org> On 2016-05-10 5:31 pm, H Lampel wrote: > Any luck with this? > > Zvi > On 5/2/2016 5:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. > > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. > > Zvi Lampel > (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) The truth is, this machloqes is something I was repeating since R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l was alive. (I mention it in Avodah vol. 1.) And RAK's presentation on logic that made it to print (years before my NCSY days) does not mention the Ramchal's side. Well, it does mention Derekh Hashem 1:1:5 but in the context of one of the paradoxes he's trying to resolve, not about allowing for paradoxes. So I'm trying to dig up an old memory of his stated source. I was thinking of a few places in sefer haHigayon and Derekh Tevunos, which I am still looking for. The Ramchal describes higayon and tevunah as tools Hashem created for a sekhel to use. I thought it was the haqdamah, but since not... The Maharal's model of machloqesin (on Avos 5:17) allows for paradoxes to result when we try to map the supernal Emes to olam hazeh. This point is not THAT relevant, but it's about machloqesin (perhaps only a subset, see end of Be'er 7 which says not every machloqes is eilu va'eilu), and I am writing to the Baal haDynamics. Anyway, it's not really a statement about logic, any more than saying that two shadows of a 3D object can differ and yet both be real shadows. (BTW, the copy of Dynamics in the beis medrash at Yeshiva of Greater Washington is well-worn and due for replacement or rebinding. I was just in the neighborhood for Grandparents' Day at my grandchildren's school.) I did post on-list (to appear in the next digest) that the nearest _pesach _30 gets to denying logic is that "zeh le'umas zeh" denies the law of contradiction. Which doesn't mean Hashem is above logic; it could just mean Hashem's logic isn't the classical one. Which I pointed out in a few halachic examples -- safeiq lashon isah hu appears to mean that a doubt is a coexistence of conflicting states, the need for a tenai to be in both positive and negative, etc... _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 Tue May 10 13:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:31:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57324535.7050501@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 03:20 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) They are discussing the buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), obviously, not the bison (Bison bison). Buffalo have been known in Europe and Asia for thousands of years, and have nothing to do with bison. Americans may be in the sloppy habit of calling bison "buffalo", but since neither the Mechaber nor the Rama were American this is irrelevant. Americans also have a fish they call "buffalo", but that's equally irrelevant. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:55:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:55:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Rav Tal on the state of Israel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160510235548.GA7880@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:10:45PM +0300, R Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim: > In these days of the yahrzeit of RAL there are many articles about > him. One article says that RAL objected strongly to the above > statements. He questions whether any rabbi has the "email address" > of hashem and knows what is helping or hindering the coming of Moshiach. His rebbe and FIL held a similar opinion. Which is why RYBS suggested to those talmidim who were going to say the Tefillah leShalom haMedinah that they might be able to get adding "shetehei" without arguments from the congregation May our Father who is in heaven bless Israel that it become the beginning of the flowering of our redemption, rather than asserting as a given that Israel is that beginning. R SY Alkalai and R ZH Kalisher, the first RZ (or religious proto-Zionist) voices, certainly did speak in terms of ge'ulah and qibbutz golios in the eschatological sense. However, R' Yitzcvhaq Reines, Mizrachi's founder, as well as R' Shmuel Mohilever were also non-messianic in their Zionism, and yet their Zionism was religious, not in addition to their religion. We've discussed in the past the fact that not all RZism is Messianic Zionism, and in fact amongst RZ gedolim, this opinion might not even have the majority. Depending, of course, on the fruitless exercise of defining who is a gadol. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:17:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:17:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to India. They did not initiate the discussion - The Be'ar Hagola tracks the source of that halacha to the Agur (Rabbi Yaakov Landau, 15th century) who was quoting Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron of 13th century Trani, Italy. In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water buffalo, an animal that is raised domestically as cattle in parts of Italy. It is from the milk of water buffalo that mozzarella cheese was originally made near Naples, Italy, and in southern Italy it is still used to make "authentic" mozzarella cheese. This would lead one to suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a kosher behamah (domesticated animal) see here for detals: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:38:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:38:21 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. ie from the halachic point of view is it a bigger problem having a memorial day in Nissan; or a simcha day in Iyar. and from a hashkafic view which is more problematic. the latter comes onto violation of 3 Oaths, idea of a 'secular' state in holy land etc . the former only that somehow holocaust is a prelude to a State, and that those who died resisting were somehow more valiant.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <57327651.5030802@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 04:17 PM, Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah wrote: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to > India. Not "likely". There's not even a hava amina otherwise. > In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water > buffalo Not just Italian but in pretty much every language, including English. > This would lead one to > suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, > were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a > kosher behamah (domesticated animal) Again, this is not a suspicion, it's a complete certainty, and I'm astonished that it even occurs to anyone to question it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:22:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 03:22:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0822d59a-9d49-b752-e005-a309ae78f4c0@starways.net> On 5/10/2016 11:38 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction > these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more > objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. Yom HaShoah is almost certainly more problematic. When the government of Israel asked the rabbis to make a Holocaust remembrance day, they were told that Tisha B'Av and Asara B'Tevet (Yom kiddush klal) covered it, and refused to create a separate day. The Knesset created Yom HaShoah themselves. It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious observances is likely to have a problem with it. Personally, I'm one of them, and while I won't walk down the sidewalk whistling on Yom HaShoah, I don't otherwise pay any attention to the day at all. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 23:56:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:56:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, *Bubalus bubalis*, native to > India. ... The question is then the halachic status of the American Bison - does it require kisui hadam and can one breed an american bison with cattle (beefalo) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 22:20:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 01:20:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re:, Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Micha Berger wrote: > Zvi Lampel wrote: > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... >: where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in >: fact it implies the opposite R. Micha responded: > Then why would you think that was the reference? My answer: Because you wrote so in reply to me previously: > Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:33:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Micha Berger" > Subject: Re: IS THE WORLD GOOD? ... >> ZL: can you direct me to where the Ramchal, too, says this?) > > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See > , where I > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and > Pischei Chokhmah 30. And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 03:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> References: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160511100415.GC11561@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:20:03AM -0400, H Lampel wrote: : > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I : > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See : > , where I : > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and : > Pischei Chokhmah 30. : And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without : citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Because there we were discussing something about logic and theology in general -- that it has no law of excluded middle. Or in English, the specific rule of paradoxes does not apply to G-d nor the shorashim of creation. And his version of the thesis of zeh le'umas zeh is in pesach 30. (R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) also uses zeh le'umas zeh and the idea that paradox is only prohibited bepo'al, not bemachashavah, to explain eilu va'eilu.) It is also sufficient for this conversation, as it shows that G-d can make a paradox manifest. However, I am still on the hunt for the source of the specific idea I was repeating from R' Aryeh Kaplan, that logic as a whole is a nivra rather than an aspect of Emes. (Work being what it has been the last week and a half, it's a very part time hunt.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 04:52:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asks: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) Google is wonderful. I entered "yoreh deah 28:4", and the third hit brought me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info about who they are) which says: > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) rules that one does not > perform kisuy hadam for a buffalo; this determines it to be a > beheimah. (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been meant. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 08:00:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:00:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160511150044.GE7880@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:52:18AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info : about who they are) which says: : : > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) ... : > (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, : > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years : > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... : Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been : meant. I think that is a list of other species for which the same logic would apply, and not other possible translations of buffalo. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 12:50:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:50:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 14:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5733A635.7040108@sero.name> On 05/11/2016 03:50 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile > "On the day that you are redeemed from the exile". Since lechol hade'os that has not yet happened (for instance, nobody has changed the davening to drop all the requests for the redemption, since it's already happened), it follows that hallel should *not* be said. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 23:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:52:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: A while back I did a shiur which touched on the efficacy of "Keil Maaleh's". I found one source which said to give tzedakah before making a keil maaleh rather than pledging to do so. This sounded extremely rational; deliver rather than promise. Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? 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 Thu May 12 00:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:44:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smartphone on shabbat Message-ID: *Zomet At The Crossroads* *> "Telegramma" - Speaking on a Smartphone on Shabbat */ The Zomet Institute At Zomet Institute we receive many requests on a wide range of subjects. One subject that keeps coming back is: When will you design a cellphone that can be used on Shabbat? This question comes from health and security personnel, who use a special telephone as part of their regular Shabbat routine, and who are looking for a way to use the new devices while keeping desecration of Shabbat to a minimum. We are happy to announce that in the last few weeks Zomet has finished the development of a smartphone "App" that uses a speaking device for Shabbat and where the keys are operated using the principle of "*gramma*" ? indirect action. Touching the screen merely changes the flow of an existing current, and therefore the smartphone can be used when there is a need for it. The " *Telegramma*" App is suitable for use only in cases of dire need, such as for matters related to health, security, or similar situations. The App is suitable for smartphones which operate on Android version 4 or higher, and it operates in conjunction with the Telegramma speaking device. For more details, contact us at www.zomet.org5-6]ssxhjxhhxnngntn/eng. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:31:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:31:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > observances is likely to have a problem with it. She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing shows that in the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:42:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:42:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic Message-ID: I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with the present discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: <<< Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? >>> Here's my guess: What will motivate one to donate beforehand? Emotions run high when the rav gives his Yizkor drasha (or at least, the emotions *ought* to run high). It's hard to get into that frame of mind before the event. This is not like other things where we are sure to prepare in advance, like preparing our matzos or our sukkah. If someone shows up at the Seder without matzos, the ramifications will insure that he will certainly remember next year. But if he arrives at Yizkor (or whenever) and forgot to donate beforehand, he'll simply promise to give after Yom Tov, and this b'dieved eventually became the standard. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57346F3E.5080102@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 06:42 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b > which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects > there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change > this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum > of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to > do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd > spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with > the present discussion That is what logicians say. See the Lewis quote in my .sig. But how do you know that it's true? Chassidus says that G-d *can* make A (which is greater than B, which is greater than C) less than C, if He wants to, because He created logic in the first place, and is not bound by it. Mekom ha'aron is the most famous example. Lewis would undoubtedly say that Chazal's description can't be true, because an object that takes up space can't simultaneously *not* take up any space. An object that has width *must* add to the width of the room in which it lies. But Chazal tell us it didn't. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 17:33:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:33:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." It has been noted that if the problem occurs because the dough is not or cannot be thoroughly kneaded, then flour would be on the inside as well. Reading the words of the ShA HaR leaves no room for any doubt - he was definitely not concerned about flour INSIDE the Matza, ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza. This is what he writes, "In truth there is no Halachic problem with Gebrochts, nevertheless those who are strict deserve a blessing. This stringency is not without reason and one who observes it is not acting in a bizarre manner but is in fact concerned to avoid a Torah prohibition [brings a number of authorities] since the flour may not have been thoroughly baked" [because flour that is baked is denatured and cannot ever become Chamets] "As can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded. Even though the flour INSIDE the Matza is a much more serious problem because it has been protected from the heat of the oven, AND IN OUR CASE THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION ...... " So - back to the Q - is this factually correct? It is clear that the ShAHa is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? and that if so, it is not baked and thereby denatured? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:35:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512153522.GD9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:42:50AM +0000, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic... Because we use logic to understand things. The chisaron is in "understand" not the possibility being discussed. Lemashal, Quantum Logic is very different than the logic we use to think with, and yet, it's still a logic with its own rules. Can you understand how electron X is spin-up or spin-down, and X is spin-left could be true, while the statement electron X is either spin-up and spin-left, or X is spin-down and spin-left might not? And yet, the difference is experimentally provable. Saying that Hashem can violate logic inherently means that some of His Actions are among the non-understandable things about Him. ... : An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic... Nu, so you agree with the Rambam. That "a round triangle" is a nonsense phrase, not describing something that can or cannot be done. Modern studies into logic, which has reveals that there is no one true logical system, have made me more skeptical. OTOH, if Hashem can defy logic, how would we ever be able to use logic to argue the point? Any proof of the position I attributed to the Ramchal and Zev attributes to Chassidus would require ruling out an adherance to logic rather than pro-atively arguing for its defiance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:22:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512152203.GC9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 06:31:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Under the current rules, Yom : Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time.... : While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted : from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which : is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the : Knesset or from the rabanim? The CR's office, in order to reduce chillul Shabbos. IIRC, for a while after the rule change, the RCA advised observing on 5 Iyyar in chu"l anyway, as American O observances wouldn't pose that kind of chilul Shabbos risk. They since changed policy. I suggested that someone may make peace with the fact by noting that having a country where the legal holidays are moved around in order to minimize chillul Shabbos is much of what one is saying Hallel for. But as one blogger put it... When you sit down to learn daf beis, you make a birkhas haTorah but not a siyum. There is what to celebrate in the existence of such a country, but the fact that they need to worry about chilul Shabbos by the masses shows Yom haAtzma'ut is a "birhas haTorah", not a siyum. Or as Rav Dovid Lifshitz put it... There is much to celebrate about YhA. But beyond atzma'ut, the nation needs to find the etzem. The job is only half-done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:08:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:08:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99d163da-fad0-a04f-8f8f-a9be47a769e7@starways.net> On 5/12/2016 1:31 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > > > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > > observances is likely to have a problem with it. > > She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know > how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, > Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a > quick glance at Wikipedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing > shows that in > the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) > > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has > resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) > on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the > change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? I don't know. I suspect the rabbanut, because they were the ones who established the holiday in the first place, but I don't know for certain. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:06:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:06:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah >> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile << -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: <19882.2235ddad.44661f9f@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) in Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 53 >> i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. << >>>> What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. But I will take the occasion to draw your attention to what I have written in the past about Yom Hashoah. This is from Cross-Currents, 2005. (I don't recommend wading through all the comments there though.) http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/05/06/yom-hashoah/ And in 2006, in the comments section to a post by Shira Schmidt [http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/05/04/the-controversy-over-holocaust-falle n-soldiers-terror-victims-memorials/], I wrote this about Yom Atzmaut: --quoting myself-- My mother has cousins ? an elderly couple, not religious ? who lost their only son in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Every year on Yom Hazikaron they cry anew, but they find the abrupt transition to Yom Atzmaut too jarring and cannot find it in themselves to celebrate. The Israeli government tried to set up a neat historical lesson that would take a few weeks each year and go in an orderly progression: 1. Galus Jews go like sheep to the slaughter ? Yom Hashoah 2. In Israel a new Jew is created, the proud Israeli soldier, who is brave and strong. He doesn?t die a helpless victim, he dies a hero, defending his homeland ? Yom Hazikaron 3. All the evil and sorrow of our past is now redeemed with the glorious new day, a proud and strong new young country, the State of Israel ? Yom haAtzmaut. Of course this simple story line has become darkened and more complex with the passage of time. Israel is no longer strong and new and young but weary and battle-scarred. Nowadays Yom Hashoah is commemorated with far more respect for the survivors than was the case in the early days, far more sorrow and far less arrogance and false pride. The Israeli Army is still looked at with pride but more young Israelis try to get out of serving ? a favorite ploy is to feign mental illness. The brave soldiers so lionized in the past are instead looked at today simply as sons and brothers. There is less glory and pride and more sorrow and grief, for all the young lives lost. Nevertheless, of all the institutions of the modern Israeli state, the army is the one most deserving of our respect and gratitude ? in my opinion. Finally, Yom Atzmaut is not looked at, either, the way it was in the past. If you read Yoram Hazony?s book *The Jewish State* ? or look at the soul-searching in the Mizrachi camp after the Gaza withdrawal ? you see that on both ends of the political spectrum, a weariness and wariness have set in, as the State has not lived up to expectations. The Left is in a post-Zionist phase where patriotism and flag-waving are passe and the alleged mistreatment of the Arabs overshadows all else. The Right has seen its messianic expectations dashed and realizes that the State is not yet the Redemption. My mother?s cousins who can?t find it in their hearts to celebrate Yom Atzmaut are not the only ones. Israel needs to rewrite its storyline. -- end of quote -- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 14:57:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:57:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:06pm RnTK wrote: : From: Eli Turkel via Avodah :> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. :> In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the :> Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi :> explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are :> redeemed at the end of the exile : Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. Nor on Chanukah? Besides, what R' Yochananan mishum R' Shim'on ben Yehotzadaq actually says there on that pasuq is that "laylah she'ein mequdash lachag, ein ta'un hallel". Which would also exclude Chanukah. >From context, I would say the gemara is asking why the existence of a holiday qorban in particular is not sufficient to justify Hallel on Pesach Sheini. So RY says, because the night is not muqdash to the qorban hachag. As for Rashi, he is commenting on the quoted pasuq. "The song will be for you -- on the day that you will be redeemed from the galus." "Like in the night which will be santified chag -- like the way you are acustomed to sing on the night which is sanctified chag. And you do not have a nightof chag to demand shirah except the nights of Pesachim, on their eating." Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 12:48:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:48:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512194844.GE9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:31AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The ShA HaRav writes : "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their : surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly : kneaded ...." Mimah-nafshakh the AR is speaing about it being a big enough risk to justify a minhag lehachmir, but not to the level of an issur. The AR writes "Be'emes, ki gam she'eino isur gamur bubarur midina, m"m hamachmir tavo alav berakhah." If it was normal for flour to be present on matzos, it would be a risk one would not be allowed to take. And if it was easy to see, no risk would be legitimate -- efshar levareir! We need to understand his empirical claims accordingly. Not a statement about something blatant that someone would notice without even a formal survey. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 19:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57351578.1080609@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 05:57 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which > Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel > for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before > establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. I'm pretty sure this does exclude any other night-time hallel. That, after all, is the gemara's point in quoting the pasuk in the first place -- to show that there is only one night on which hallel is said, and therefore it is not said on Pesach Sheni. I also don't see the implication that the future holiday's hallel will be said at night. All the pasuk seems to be saying is that there will be a new yomtov on which you will say hallel, as you do on the night that is sanctified for a chag. Yeshayahu is merely citing an example of an occasion when hallel is said, and could easily have cited a different one instead, but he would have had to be more specific, since there are many days on which hallel is said, and many on which it is not. By citing Pesach night as his example, he can get away with saying, essentially, "like on hallel night", which is not ambiguous because there is only one. From this the gemara learns that there is no hallel on Pesach Sheni. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:25:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:25:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is worse Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/search/?s=yom+haatzmaut&sort=1 1. the issue of date changing of YH is dealt with in rabbi grunstein's lecture 2. the issue of saying hallel at all , that some provocatively dismiss outright, is dealt with by rabbi zylberman, appropriately in his talk at the Aguda of Passaic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 23:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 06:20:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt Message-ID: While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day from the end of the British mandate to avoid chillul shabbat so yom haazmaut was always arranged to avoid chillul shabbat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 07:24:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May I presently buy Israeli carrots after the recent Shmita year? Message-ID: <1463149425226.74416@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. Israeli carrots currently being sold in the U.S. (May 2016) at this point can be assumed to no longer be peiros shevi'is and may be purchased lichatchila. In fact, purchasing Israeli products is commendable as it benefits the Israeli economy. However, if the carrots do not have a reliable kosher certification, one must separate the relevant tithes (Terumos and Ma'aseros). This year is the first year of the shemita cycle. This means that ma'aser sheini must be separated. The ma'aser sheini portion can be redeemed by transferring its kedusha (elevated status) to a coin. Even a nickel may be used, provided the ma'aser sheini portion (approximately 9% of the package of carrots) is worth more than a peruta, approximately 3 or 4 cents. For the procedure to separate Terumah and Maaser, see https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/separating-terumah-and-maaser/. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 08:52:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:52:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) 2 questions. 1. What is the heter to free the kids? (it's a torah prohibition to free them) 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha and kids thru her (eved ivri) He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:07:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:07:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] on a role for a 'secular' Israel Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/856920/rabbi-moshe-taragin/secular-zionism-for-religious-jews/#.VzVBhX-h6_c.mailto Very good explanation to MTA boys on how to look at the zionist enterprise and how to view it in the scope haskala, brit sinai vs moriah , kiddush hashem etc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:44:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:44:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: >>>What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. ----some people need to ask themselves why asking a halachic question provokes them. maybe the 'slyness' was pointing out that an issur can only be perceived as assur by those who believe said action is assur , not by those who feel act in question is muttar/mitzvah. clearly i couldn't ask why people who commemorate those two days don't realize that it's actually assur.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:18:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:18:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> Message-ID: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> On 05/13/2016 11:52 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer > who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce > children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular > Jews) > > 2 questions. > > 1. What is the heter to free the kids? > (it's a torah prohibition to free them) It's also prohibited to have relations with a shifcha, but Chazal permitted a mamzer to do so for this purpose. > 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he > did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them > (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? > parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos > 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha > and kids thru her (eved ivri) > He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship > with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) Why do you say that? On the contrary, "veyatz'ah ishto imo" means his wife goes in with him, i.e. lives with him at his owner's expense. And *only* a married eved ivri is allowed a shifcha. The simple and expected case is that he loves and gets along with *both* of his wives, and wants to stay with both. > The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Again, because she is his wife and they are his children. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:24:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:39 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted > from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which > is not the actual anniversary. > Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day... RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out on. That the Rabbanut moved that day forward or backward to avoid Chilul Shabbos was not significant. The day that Israel was declared a state is the day to say Hallel (and not to say Tachnun). One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:44:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:44:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160513184458.GC10043@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 06:24:08PM +0000, Harry Maryles wrote: : RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out : on... Although RAS was niftar before the telecom explosion that caused much of the RCA to shift position. As RGS recently wrote about R/Dr Aaron Levine of Flatbush : In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:54:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:54:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> Message-ID: <063701d1ad48$d0e0f7b0$72a2e710$@com> RZS writes ...How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? You are claiming a tremendous chidush l'halacha - that these are actually his kids. Do you have anyone who says this? It w appear not, bc they are not mityaches acharav (as a proof - we see that they are avodim, and not mamzers) mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 04:46:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 07:46:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> The justification for the shiur of a geris for kesmamim on clothing is that any spot that is a kegeris or less in area could be from a crushed parasite. So the kesem proves nothing. Also (Niddah 58b) points out that they couldn't make a gezeirah that would mean she would never be tahor leba'alah. I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? For comparison: Tosafos (58b, "ukidvarav") say that if she were infested with many ma'akhalos, one could be toleh even a larger kesem on that. We do not hold like Tosafos. The AhS (YD 190:18) pins that on these bugs being loners. They don't scamper in pairs. Multiple crushed lice would make multiple kesamim. Alternatively (se'if 27, in the name of the Rosh se'if 6) lo pelug chakhamim. Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. (A ma'akholes is apparently too common or too unnoticable to warrant needing to know if there was one around.) And the AhS (se'if 31) says that because pishpeshin can't be found where he lives, this din doesn't apply. This is based on Rashi ("R"N") saying "there are places where pishpeshin are found, and in those places..." Would people living in modern settings have to say the same about the ma'akholes? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:19:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:19:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which > case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, > pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've > unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than > lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the > ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. The bedbugs that I had seen in both the US and Israel are significantly larger than lice, and when filled with blood, hold a lot more. Furthermore, bed bugs have a very distinct odor (at least when there is a significant infestation) that many people can smell. -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:32:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 08:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57386C6F.6070906@sero.name> > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a > place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, > that this is a likely alternative explanation. Bedbugs are back, and can strike anywhere, and the first indication of their presence, long before one actually sees them, is the kesamim they leave behind. I wonder if "maacholes" actually means bedbug, but even if it doesn't the same principle applies. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 07:12:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:12:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live > in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice > and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. > > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah > didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and > therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came > from? I've always figured on the second of these two. My reasoning is based on the halachos of where the kesem was found. If we are going to make logical estimates "about where the kesem came from", then we shouldn't care about whether or not the cloth can be mekabel tumah. Who cares about the size of the cloth, or the color of the cloth, or the material of the cloth? But the system was set up such that if the cloth is not m'kabel tumah, then the kesem can't be tamay either. And so too for the size of the kesem. I had a lot of trouble understanding - and even accepting - the above, but when I realized that without hargasha everything becomes d'rabanan, it began to make sense. (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche to set it up however they wanted.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:25:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:25:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mazer Message-ID: <> There is a major discussion if one has a child who is a mamzer whether he has fulfilled the mtzvah of pru u-revu or not. Similarly is there a mitzva for a mamazer to marry a mamzerut to have children (see minchat chinuch, har tzvi, kovetz shiurim) BTW I saw an opinion that if a mamzer marries a shifcha and has a child he doesn't fulfil; pru u-revi but he does fulfill le-shevet yezarah see a discussion by RAL on pru urevu vs leshevet yetzirah (Hebrew) http://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D6%B6%D7%91%D6%B6%D7%AA-%D7%90 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:43:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Mordechai Cohen asked: <<< The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) >>> My understanding is that if a Jew has relations with a non-Jewess and the resulting children convert to Judaism, he DOES fulfill p'ru uv'vu through them. (Maybe that's only in the case of a non-Jewush man who converts together with his children? I'm not sure.) <<< He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha ... The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? >>> No, it's not the *posuk* who refers to the shifcha and children that way. The posuk is merely quoting the man. It is the man who referred to them that way, and given his love for them, I'd expect nothing less. One might argue that he wrong for feeling that love and/or for expressing it, but that's irrelevant: He does feel that way, and he did verbalize it, and the Torah is merely quoting him. My second answer is more technical. Hebrew has no word for wife. His words could just as easily be translated as "I love my woman", which I presume you'll concede to be accurate. As far as "my children", well, he just wasn't being very clear. He didn't mean "my halachic children", but merely "my genetic children". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:43:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 01:43:44 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? Message-ID: It seems R Micha has erred by not recognising that the risk is NOT about whether there is flour, of course there is flour - as the SAHaR says 'behold we see with our own eyes' that there is flour on the Matza the risk is whether the flour that is certainly there on many Matzos - has been toasted adequately to be denatured and prevented from becoming Chamets when exposed to water. Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57389966.5020706@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 10:12 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts > in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha > d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it > is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only > works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche > to set it up however they wanted.) This is not true. Mid'oraisa tzuras hapesach works in a reshus horabim de'oraisa. That one can't fix a r"hr simply by putting up four poles and four strings is mid'rabanan. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 11:45:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> From: M Cohen via Avodah R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) Mordechai cohen >>>>> There is no "shifcha" today. But a mamzer can marry a non-Jewish woman and have children with her, and later those children can convert to Judaism. I'm not saying he is halachically allowed to marry a non-Jewish woman but the fact is, if he does so, his children will not be mamzerim. Similarly a kohen who is a challal can avoid having children who are challalim by having children with a non-Jewish woman, and later they can convert and be kosher Jews. True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be cha llalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid the consequences of sin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 16:59:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:59:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 02:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such > eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was > tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid > the consequences of sin. That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no reason not to encourage him to do it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 01:32:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:32:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: On 5/16/2016 2:59 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one > we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually > forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no > reason not to encourage him to do it. Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 02:58:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 05:58:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516095809.GA31988@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:43:44AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the : facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour : is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. ... only because you're asking about the problem being prevalent enough for gebrochts to be assur. Whereas I am arguing that by context, we know the SAhR's "harbei" means prevalent enough to be worth a chumerah. And that kind of frequency would require a broad survey. Not sure if that qualifies as efshar levareir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 04:57:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:57:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten bam) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 06:18:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> R' Micha - thanks for the m"makom - still have to look it up. RMB also asked - Are you asking why a man might want to have children other than his chiyuv to do so? Ans. I am aware that a man can (and might want to) raise children not his own. Ie adoption. My question was that R Tarfon seems to imply that his eitza is more than just adopting and raising children not his own. I didn't (and still don't) understand why his eitza is better - they are not mityaches to him in any way. RZS's answer is not true. BTW, thanks to Reb Google, see article on this subject (though it does not extensively deal w/ my questions) [Posted as part of the thread or -micha] Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 10:41:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't > think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah Kamoha) seems to disagree. On 05/16/2016 07:57 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: >> "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not >> yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" > The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children > are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The > Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with > the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks > nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten > bam) The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) But the proof that your children by a nochris are nochrim like her is from the pasuk that says they are not your children. That pasuk doesn't *say* that they're nochrim, but the gemara deduces that since they have no Jewish parent what else could they be? The pasuk itself is not concerned with their status, since the avera it says they'll do is avoda zara, which is forbidden also to nochrim, and thus if they were your children this would be a matter of concern to you. (Your obligation of chinuch would surely apply to your non-Jewish children, if it were possible for you to have any; you wouldn't have to teach them not to eat treif or break shabbos, but surely you would have to teach them not to serve avoda zara, and thus it should upset you that their mother will teach them to serve it.) By saying that this is not something you should be upset about, the pasuk is telling you that they are not your children, and thus their idolatry and subsequent damnation is none of your business. On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > RZS answer is not true. And your proof is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 22:14:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: On Monday, May 16, 2016, Zev Sero wrote: > On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't >> think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. > Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar > Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. > The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt > http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah > Kamoha) seems to disagree. You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being your children. I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they are your children or not. Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 13:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <5bc7f3.13131e6f.446b89a5@aol.com> > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone.[--old TK] AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben ben1456 at zahav.net.il >>>>> But I think the son of a challal is a challal, and his son, and his son, forever. And the daughter of a challal cannot marry a kohen. So his granddaughter (son of his son), his great-granddaughter and so on, can never marry kohanim -- at least until so many generations have passed that no one remembers the family are challalim. Whereas if he has a son with a non-Jewish woman that son is not a challal. He's also not a Jew, but he can become one. And the daughter of a ger can marry a kohen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:13:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 23:13:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben On 5/15/2016 8:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:34:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:34:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A20C2.2050400@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 03:14 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. > The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with > their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, > and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's > property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to > exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, > but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that > of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) > > You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being > your children. Neither the pasuk nor the gemara says anything about their yichus. All it discusses is their status. The Pasuk says they belong to their mother's owner, therefore the gemara says they are avadim. There's no chain of logic involved here; the gemara is merely restating the pasuk. That is very unlike the gemara's next case, where the pasuk doesn't directly address the children in question at all, and its indirect statement is that they are not yours, from which the gemara infers that they must be nochrim. > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. > Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as > a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. 1) Who says a Jew can't be related to a non-Jew? The gemara's order of logic is *not* "they're nochrim, therefore they're not your children", but rather "they're not your children, therefore they're nochrim". 2) Avadim *are* Jews, so who says they can't be related to Jews? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:31:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 05:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from > other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:57:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516215742.GC21112@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:27:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: : shabasos limnucha : moadim l'simcha : chagim uzmanim l'sason : : I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are... : My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, : because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are : Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they : the same in regards to Sason? Apparently they are different aspects of the same thing. As in, "Chag haMatzos haZeh, zeman Cheiruseinu." There is a duality between zeman va'eis, as in a beris being be'ito uvizmano. Quoting what I wrote in v15n74: > ... RAKotler has a beautiful vort on the > difference. Beqitzur to the point of omitting the beauty: eis = a > point in the time sequence of a process. (RSRH would probably relate > "eis" to "ad".) Be'ito, when the baby is ready. Zeman = a point in > time according to a scedule. In this case, the morning of day 8 (or > day 9 when a safeiq Shabbos situation arises). I wrote a vort for MmD > on eis, zeman, qeitz, yamim, shanim, and Jewish time in general at > . In that vertl, I suegges that a qeitz is where the zeman and eis for the end coincide. Thus, "miqeitz shenasayim yamim" is when the predetermined number of years in jail were up AND when Yoseif was developmentally ready. Shanim and yamim. Circular time and linear time. A chag is a point in circular time, /ch-v-g/ related to /`-v-g/ to draw a circle. It's a sacred eis. But every chag coincides with a sacred zeman. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 23rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination Fax: (270) 514-1507 stifle others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 15:02:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:02:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516220214.GD21112@aishdas.org> I feil to see the problem. Nosein ta'am and bitul beshishim go hand-in-hand. RMF yses this argument in a letter to R' Pinechas Teitz to explain why whiskey can be made in sherry casks; since stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6, there is no problem of ta'am. You would obviously tased a mixture of 6 parts water to one part wine. Since qitniyos are batel berov, why would there be reason to say that a pot can becomes "peasdik"? (To quote a subject line from a month ago.) Are we afraid that the volume of the walls of the pot exceed the volume the pot holds? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 22:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:35:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> Message-ID: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No issur involved. 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? On 5/16/2016 11:31 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters > are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim > like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:34:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be :> declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? : Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one : can't accept it in many other cases A little more complicated, since discussing chumeros in mamzeirus raises an issue distinct to mamzeirus. "Kivan denitme'ah, nitme'ah" is a gezeiras hakasuv which makdes resolving mamzeirus in many cases beyond chumerah -- altogether needless. Being born of a father other than the husband does not make these people mamzeirim altogether. More than that, the gemara (Qiddushin 71a) continues telling you one SHOULD NOT reveal the families in which mamzeirus is nitme'ah. It is therefore consistent to refuse DNA testing for mamzeirus (in these cases), while believing that DNA testing is in principle halachically valid evidence. Part of a general reluctance to gather eviudence. However, I would think we could use DNA testing to help a shetuqi or asufi, to free him for the shadow of mamzeirus or at least allow him to marry vadai mamzeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 08:04:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:04:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517150411.GD8481@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 05:54:21PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote: : Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. : While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of : yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? Exactly. Better to use a DNA test to make a shetuqi or asufi either kosher yichus or a vadai mamzer than leaving him a shetuqi or asifu. So I assume in such cases, we should use the DNA test; either result is better than none. (And it's not a kivan shenitme'ah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 09:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 5/17/2016 8:35 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No > issur involved. But then their sons are challalim. > 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to > marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a > convert or divorcee)? Zona, with a zayin. I know one couple who, when they went to get married, were told by their rabbi that she was a virgin. That he didn't want to hear about what she'd done or not done. Granted, she wasn't marrying a kohen, but I guess there's a chazaka. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 12:54:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:54:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:06:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Areivim wrote: : Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people whose values contradict : the Torah is not a hillul hashem.... : As RZS has often said here, kiddush hashem does not mean "good PR" And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul hasheim because CH *does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive Peloni. Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. The gemara literally defines qiddush hasheim has good PR. To tweak that first quoted sentence: Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people because they hold values that contradict the Torah is not a chillul hasheim. That isn't you pushing them away from avodas Hashem, it's them a natural downward spiral. However, lowering that estaeem among people whose values contradict the Torah's for other reasons is NOT "sheyehei sheim shamayim mis'aheiv al yadekha." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:30:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > Peloni. Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a *kiddush* haShem. > Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct value system. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:24:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:24:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> Message-ID: <573B7DFB.1050504@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > Btw, thanks to reb google, see article on this subject (though it does not > extensively deal w my questions) > > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf Very thorough, but I see one enormous flaw -- the author takes it for granted that slavery is barred by dina demalchusa. This may be true in some countries, e.g. the UK, where the common law has held for centuries that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in, and thus that any slave who sets foot in England automatically becomes free. But it remains to be established that this is the case in all countries, particularly in the USA, where the 13th amendment only bans *involuntary* servitude. I am unaware of any law in the USA that would prevent a person from voluntarily becoming the property of another, and after _Lawrence_ and _Obergefell_ such laws, if they exist, may even be unconstitutional! If so, then the shifcha method could work here. There may well also be other countries where this is the case. And in Israel it might be possible to introduce legislation in the Knesset to explicitly legalise voluntary avdus, with appropriate safeguards to prevent it being abused. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:51:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 00:51:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't > include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we > make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the severity of the laws of taharot. He says that even though that reason no longer applies in our current circumstances, we can't nullify the gezerah of ketamim altogether. But we certainly don't need to extend it beyond the specifications of the original gezerah. So a ketem smaller than a k'gris does not make a woman niddah, even nowadays when such a stain cannot plausibly be attributed to a ma'akolet. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:47:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. : : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. Where does it say that? And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah by how clean some TC's frock is? : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation is not limited to those peers. : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive : >Peloni. : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a : *kiddush* haShem. ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off to Tzeduqim? Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. : : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct : value system. You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such limitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517220836.GA31726@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51:47AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. : Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the : reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the : severity of the laws of taharot... So the CS holds that kegeris is the limit of the gezeirah, and not just part of the general "you can be toleh kesamim on anything plausible". Pishpishin and the shiur of a keturmos (the size of a bean called a "lupine"?) *is* considered part of that general rule. To the extent that the Rambam doesn't give it special mention. Which brings me to the next question... How does the CS know that kegeris and blaming a ma'akholes is different in kind than the rest of the sugya? We could deduce from the Rambam, but that just shifts my question up some centuries. For example, the Yereim says that the shiur is based on the lice of your region, and not the same kegeris (about a nickle) of chazal. Of course (given the above), the CS does say the shiur is a geris, not tied to the size of engourged lice. And does that mean that the Yereim (and the mi'ut of contemporary posqim who hold like him) would say there is no shiur today? BTW, the PT, #12 says besheim the Raavad that there is no shiur if the kesem is black, since a ma'akheles stain would always be rad. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 05:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. > : > : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > > Where does it say that? It's completely obvious, and doesn't need saying. It simply can't be otherwise. > And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah > by how clean some TC's frock is? Apparently so. Otherwise what guide do you have? Why do you assume pagans esteem cleanliness, when for every one that does so there's probably another who esteems filth and despises cleanliness? > : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, > > : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > > The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation > is not limited to those peers. But non-peers may well think highly of him for it. Think of the "game" community that has formed online in the last 20 years, and what sort of traits they admire and despise in a person. A reputation that would embarass a t"ch's peers would be lionised in those circles. > : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > : >Peloni. > > : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and > : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a > : *kiddush* haShem. > > ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off > to Tzeduqim? Then it's a good bet that it's a kiddush haShem. > Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my > capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. Actually the gemara's lashon is may *his* Lord forgive him. But it's obviously being said by people who know what Hashem's standards are. > : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. > : > : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct > : value system. > > You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such > limitation. It *has* to have it, because we have voluminous *evidence* of what KH/CH is, and it's emphatically *not* that sheim shomayim should be beloved by those "who call bad good and good bad, who establish darkness as light and light as darkness, bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:57:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> Who is the audience to chilul hasheim in Yesodei haTorah 5:11? "Haberios". Ad sheyimtz'u HAKOL meqlsin oso, ve'ohavim oso, umis'avim lema'asav. Harei zeh qideish as hasheim... "Hakol" is all who? Not all the berios, since that's all he (repeatedly) describes as the observers? -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:35:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:35:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish Message-ID: A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels that there is no health problem can eat the two together -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:32:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:32:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: <> RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea of shifcha today is ridiculous -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:28:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:28:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 05:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:28:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735391/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/eating-fish-and-meat-together/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 04:10:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573C4DA9.9060307@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 05:28 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they >> are your children or not. > > Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> > > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Of course marriage is an occasion when one is *interested* in yichus, just as one is interested in health, character, and all kinds of other things; would you say that "health refers to marrriage, and might have nothing to do with topics like strength, diet, medical treatment, or life expectancy"?! -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 07:27:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:27:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> RBW asked.. L'maaseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a zona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? Ans. Yes, all BT girls are asked 'as discreetly as possible' if they are mutar to a cohen or not when in the shidduch parsha. (bc rov are not eligible) L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must look towards FFB shidduchim This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they bring it up otherwise) Some stats: The average age Americans lose their virginities is 17.1 for both men and women The CDC also reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females aged 20 to 24. That number drops below 5 percent aged 25 to 29 Statistically, if you didn't have sex in your teen years, you're in the minority. The interesting/disturbing problem is that many (rov?) BT cohens are not probably not cohens. (and actually w be mutar to a zona, mutar l'tamai l'masim, etc) If the BT cohens mother grew up post 1960s/70s/80s or so (and became BT post high school), it's probably a chazakah that she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. It's unlikely that the BT boy is willing to ask his mother if she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. (and even if she says she wasn't, is she be believed against the chazaka?) I personally heard from a major chareidi posek that for this reason a cohen s l'chatchila not go out w a BT cohens daughter, if the parents were married before they became frum and she was a teenager post 1960s/70s/80s or so (bc of the possibility that she is actually the daughter of a chalalah who was forbidden to marry her father) As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 09:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:28pm IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they :> are your children or not. : :> Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. : : Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage... I assume you mean: Yichus refers to a persons lineage WRT whom they and their descendents may marry. Do I understand correctly? : It might have nothing to do : with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between : parents and child. Is there a source for making such a chiluq, or are you just posing a hava amina for discusion. I was told lehalkhah ulemasseh that an adoptive child's honoring his parents is a qiyum of kavod harav, not kibud av va'eim. So for KAvA, some kind of genetic parentage is involved. At 12:32pm IDT, RET continued (on a second aspect of the discussion): : RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea : of shifcha today is ridiculous I would like to have the grapevine confirmed on this one. But in any case... When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and shevuyim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:02:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> Message-ID: <573CA023.104@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 10:27 AM, M Cohen wrote: > L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must > look towards FFB shidduchim > > This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. > > At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they > bring it up otherwise) But what about chalalos? An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married. Who keeps track of that, let alone after several generations? > As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens > are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Not just BTs, as I pointed out above. And indeed many poskim do say that this is why our cohanim only duchen on yomtov; since they have no yichus, and can't know whether they're really entitled to duchen, they should avoid doing so except when it would be blatantly obvious, and would thus cause a pegam on their family. (This is a based on a gemara that a safek cohen would collect terumah only once a year, to keep up his name.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573CA023.104@sero.name> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> <573CA023.104@sero.name> Message-ID: <0dcd01d1b128$28a623c0$79f26b40$@com> RZS wrote ..An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married.. Ans. But these FFB girls DO have a chezkas kashrus. My point was that todays female BTs, and male BTs descended from cohanim don't have that chazaka anymore Mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:01:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:01:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:35:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on : yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not : eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels : that there is no health problem can eat the two together In terms of acharonim, it's the Yad Efraim (#116) CS (shu"t #101) prohibiting and the MA (OC 173) permitting. The MA says nishtanah hateva. The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which we don't eat anymore. 2- The Rambam omits it as he does any other piece of medical advice that doesn't work. According to R' Avraham b haRambam, nishtanah hateva means the scientific theory has changed. WHch would make this idea a paralel to the MA's reasoning. The YE lists numerous posqim who prohibit, appealing to authority rather than giving a sevara But I think there is more to the story than included in this report. It's non-trivial to tell people -- especially Ashkenazim -- to follow the Rambam against both the SA (including the Rama) and commonly accepted practice. I am not questioning the conclusion, I just think we are missing critical pieces of the argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573CA7CB.5070500@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 12:51 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and > shevuyim? That's discussed at length in the article that was forwarded. Basically since avdus is a matter of dinei momonos it would seem to depend on dina demalchusa. But my question is on the metzius in the USA; I question the assumption that voluntary slavery is illegal here. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 11:36:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:36:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> References: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> <573BA37C.9070402@sero.name> <20160518174122.GE6953@aishdas.org> <573CAB65.1060509@sero.name> <2e7c1df5b9ef9931f5bc64b483eaeff8@aishdas.org> <573CAD8E.2030905@sero.name> <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160518183641.GA3694@aishdas.org> Two more examples of qiddush hasheim being about behavior in front of anyone. 1- Geneivas aku"m through circumvention is a lack of qiddush hasheim (R' Aqiva, BQ 113a) 2- Orechos Tzadiqim, sha'ar haEmes, calls getting the nations to say "Berikh E-lohehon diYhuda'i!" to be a qidush hasheim. The example is from Shimon ben Shetach requiring his talmidim to return a gem to a Yishmaeli when it was lifnim mishuras hadin. (TY BM 2:5, vilna 8a) (Recall this is pre-Islam, the Yishmaeli was aku"m.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 01:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:26:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or even leaves the family. One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive family and biology contributes nothing. Though not the topic of the shiur if the mother is a shifcha or a nonJew the father (who stays with the family) is entitled to all rights of a father including kibud Av independent of any halachot of yichus. He is not worse than an adoptive parent (my conclusion not discussed in the shiur) The only exception to this rule is sitting shiva. One is required to sit shiva for the biological father and may sit shiva for the adoptive father. When questioned he explained that not sitting shiva for a father even if he did nothing for the family might hint of mamzerut -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 21:32:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Adar Jacob via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:32:58 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 02:59:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 05:59:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160519095946.GD26914@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Adar Jacob wrote: : As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting : it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov : for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. This isn't an issue of rov. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that kivan shenitma, nitma -- a family in which the mamzeirus got forgotten must be left that way. One is *prohibited* against digging up lost claims of mamzeirus. I think of it in similar terms to how an afflicted person isn't a metzorah until the kohein says so. Here too, the biological parentage is the primary factor in determining mamzeirus, but apparently not the only one. We must also be aware of that parentage. And if hot, the person isn't halachically a mamzer and we wrong him by finding out his biological state and making him subject to the strictures. It is only a foundling (asufi) or someone who can't identify who his father is (shetuqi) who are *derabbanan* held under doubt. (De'oraisa, only a definite mamzer is assur.) Not cases of needing to dig up history of people who think they're kosher. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 26th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking Fax: (270) 514-1507 control just a way of abandoning one's self? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:15:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:15:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573DA051.10607@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 01:01 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including > > 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which > we don't eat anymore. Or perhaps we (i.e. middle Europeans) *do* eat this species but the Rambam (in Egypt) didn't and was unaware of it. I know the two Aris have identified it as a species that exists only in the Euphrates, and thus is eaten only in Turkey and Iraq, but that's not information the CS could have had. It could just as easily have been a species that also lives in the Danube, but not in the Nile or the Mediterranean. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:12:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:12:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Death Message-ID: <1463667145403.74543@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Vayikra 21:5 They shall not make a bald spot on their head, nor shall they shaveoff the corners of their beard and they shall not make a wound in their flesh. Heathenism, both ancient and modern, tends to associate religion with death. The kingdom of God begins only where man ends. Death and dying are the main manifestations of divinity. For, in the heathen view, the deity is a god of death, not of life; a god who kills and never revives, who sends death and its harbingers - sickness and poverty - so that men, mindful of his power and their own helplessness, should fear him. For this reason heathen temples stand beside graves, and the foremost place of heathen priests is beside a corpse. There, where the eyes are dimmed and the heart is broken, they find fertile soil for the dissemination of their religion. He who bears on his flesh a mark of death - a symbol of death's power to conquer all - and thus remains ever mindful of death, performs the religious act par excellence, and this especially befits a priest and his office. Not so are the priests in Judaism, because not so is the Jewish concept of God and not so is the Jewish religion. God, Who instructs the Kohein regarding his position in Israel, is a God of life. The most exalted manifestation of God is not in the power of death, which crushes strength and life. Rather, God reveals Himself in the liberating and vitalizing power of life, which elevates man to free will and eternal life. Judaism teaches us not how to die but how to live, so that even in life we may overcome death, an unfree existence, enslavement to physical things, and moral weakness. Judaism teaches us how to live every moment of earthly life as a moment of eternal life in the service of God; how thus to live every moment of a life marked by moral freedom, a life of thought and will, creativity and achievement, and also pleasure. This is the teaching to which God has dedicated His Sanctuary and for whose service He has consecrated the Kohanim, who teach the people the "basis and direction of life" __________________________________________________________________ Based on this may one conclude that the present day obsession with death that one finds in some Islamic circles is a reversion to heathenism? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:54:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:54:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In continuation of the topic of kibud av ve-em from yevamot 22b that there is ni issur to curse a wicked father rambam hilchot mamrim explains that this applies only the punishment the Tur disagrees and says that one must honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva others distinguish and say that one must honor a wicked father only while he is alive see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva R Zilberstein brings the Zecher Shlomo (Lech Lecha) and the Chida (Devash Le-phi 1:39) that therefore Avraham owed no honor to his father Terach once Terach handed him over to Nimrod. R Zilberstein further brought the Maharam Shick that one who is involved (metapel) in a mitzvah is the owner of the mitzvah and whoever works and establishes a mitzvah is the one to make the arrangements. Thus the one who actively rears the child is the "owner" of the child and gets to make the decisions and not the biological parent who is not around. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573DA738.2000201@sero.name> On 05/19/2016 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation > of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or > even leaves the family. > One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's > marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. > R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has > absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the > adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em > applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that > abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive > family and biology contributes nothing. Sorry, this is contrary to halacha. Kibbud av va'em is not connected to hakarat hatov; it's a duty that one owes to ones parents *regardless* of whether they did one good or bad. Even a mamzer owes his parents kibud, although they did him the worst evil. Even Avraham Avinu, whose father handed him over to be burned, owed him kibbud av. An adoptive "parent" is only owed hakarat hatov (and kevod rabbo if he taught him torah) and therefore is only owed it if he actually did good and not bad. An abusive adoptive parent is owed nothing. This is not subject to any machlokes, thus there is no room for different opinions. Someone who says otherwise is simply wrong. I found an answer to my speculation that a Jew's child by a shifcha might be considered his child. It's not so. An eved has no yichus at all, not even to his mother(!) let alone his father. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 06:37:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:37:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to > do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections > between parents and child RZS: > What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? > Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Yichus may of course have different meanings in different contexts. The first mishna in the fourth perek of Kiddushin, Asara Yuchasin, very strongly connects yichus to marriage. The mishna lists ten halachic categories of personal status (my translation of "yichus") , and then immediately details the connection of these statuses to the permissibility of marriage Indeed it is clear that according to this mishna, a *very fundamental implication* of yichus is whom can one marry halachically, Putting this more strongly it seems that the mishna is defining ten halachic "marriageability" categories (yuchasin), making marriageability a *defining characteristic* of yichus. This is most likely what RET had in mind. In the framework of this mishna, RZS' statement "What does yichus have to do with marriage?Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less." is untenable.Yichus defines whom you can marry. When the gemara states "bno min min hashifcha umin hanachrit u eino mityaches acharav" it is saying, as we know, that halachically the child of a male Jew and a female slave or a non-Jewish woman is not his child; there is no genealogical connection ("yichus") between them. This is the sense of yichus that RZS apparently favors, but is a meaning of yichus very different from that in the above cited mishna. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 03:02:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:02:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I am bringing in more detail the story told by R Zilberstein. He gives out notes before the shiur and so this is all in print if anyone is interested A man divorced his wife after a nasty settlement without leaving any mezonot for the wife or their daughter. Later the woman married again and had a new happy family and the new husband raised the daughter from the first marriage supplying all her needs while the biological father had no contact with his daughter A few days before the daughter's marriage the father shows up holding an invitation upset that the adoptive father is listed as the father of the kallah and the biological father isn't mentioned at all. He screamed is the husband of your mother really your father? Though he had no contact with his daughter he described the shame he had with his friends and demanded that they print a new invitation with himself listed as the father of the bride The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father of the bride. Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to have his name listed on the invitation. The daughter returned to her father with the psak of R Zilberstein and the father remarked that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also needs to participate in buying an apartment. R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the biological father is listed. He was not sure whether the language should be "be abuha" or "be nasa" . The first would be a lie since she didn't live with her father but the second language is used only for an orphaned bride. His preferred remedy was to leave that phrase out completely. Again anyone who wants to see the Hebrew original can contact me -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:12:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:12:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573F3781.9080405@sero.name> On 05/20/2016 06:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that > the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. In other words, her obligation of kibud av va'em is to her real father, not to the one who raised her, but this obligation doesn't include putting him on her wedding invitation, for the reason explained later. > Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her > up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the > dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father > of the bride. I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by the father, but not in this case). > Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to > have his name listed on the invitation. [...] the father remarked > that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter > returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz > they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also > needs to participate in buying an apartment. Again, the term "to be considered the father" makes no sense here; can money make someone a father or not a father?! If he's not the father how can any amount suddenly make him one, and why are they haggling over the amount? Rather the issue here was not at all whether he's the father. Of course he is. The issue here was who is the host who is making the wedding and inviting people to it. And that is the person who is paying, not just for the actual affair, but also the expenses that enable the affair to happen, i.e. the apartment, without which there would be no shidduch. It appears from this psak that if he is willing to pay this the bride and her adoptive father may not refuse! And that would be because he is after all the father, and thus has the *right* to host his daughter's wedding, if only he is willing to do so. > R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological > father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the > biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but > when he is alive the biological father is listed. I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! And the fact is that she is forbidden to his relatives, and *permitted* to her adoptive father's relatives. (In fact it used to be common for someone who raised an orphan to arrange a marrriage for him or her with one of his own children. I even know of a case nowadays where this happened.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:18:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:18:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Surely prevention of marriage with (forbidden) relatives is applicable whether the biological father is or is not alive? On 20 May 2016 at 11:02, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in > order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not > alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the > biological father is listed. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 13:00:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:00:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: see http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ and especially http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful for this is also greater. also http://www.lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] The children may be identified when called to the Torah and in formal documents as the son or daughter of those who raised them, and the normal restrictions of *yihud* (which generally allows unsupervised and close contact with only biological parents, siblings and children) is not applicable to adoptive families, whose members interact as a biological family would. This is far more than transporting halakhic forms (like not addressing one?s adoptive parents by their first names) to the adoptive family. It is an expression of a new halakhic reality, so to speak. obviously laws of mourning are different between a biological parent and an adoptive parent Rabbi Soloveitchik insisted that there is a *kiyyum* of the mitzvah of *avelut* even when there is no halakhic obligation to mourn the specific individual. He drew this conclusion from the ruling that ?Where there is a case of a deceased who has left no mourners to be com?forted, ten worthy men should assemble at his placeall seven days of the mourning period and the rest of the people should gather about them [to comfort them]. And if the ten cannot stay on a regular basis, others from the community may replace them.? It was for this reason that the Rav regularly advised children to mourn the adopted parents who had raised them. If there was no * hiyyuv *[obligation]* ha-mitzvah*, there was none-the-less a *kiyyum ha-mitzvah*. BTW a friend of mine told me that there is a psak of R Schacter that if the parent abused the child and it would be a great stress on the child to mourn for the parent then he is exempt from sitting shiva -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 11:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:20:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I found an extended article on how to fix a mazer (tihur mamzerim) from avnei hamakom volume 15 from Rav Oren Zwick As to marrying a shifcha he nrings that minchat yotzchak outlawed it because of dina demalchuta Rab Breish (Chelkat Yaakov) - in a series of letters between them disagrees. In fact it is suggested that in Israel marriage is conducted by the rabbinate and halachically they should be able to allow a shifcha. It is stressed that this is on condition that it be done officially-legally by the Israeli rabbinate. He also discusses other options and ends with a reference to Yevamot 68b and bet shmuel 2:18 in the name os sefer charedim that a mamzer can't live more than 12 months > I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the > original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is > inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by > the father, but not in this case). I am confused. I emphatically stated that anyone who wants to see the original to contact me and I would send it. Why suspect what is written when one can check it yourself The words that R Zilberstein uses are harei she - "avi hakallah" bnidan didan hu ha-abba ha-choreg Obviously the adoptive father is not the "real" father is considered like the real father and is the one who should be listed as the father in the invitation > I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the > father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! Be-kewtuba raui lichtov et shemo shel ha-av ha-amiti hedei she-lo tezei taut u-machshla be-nisue krovim. Umnam be-yetoma kotvim et shemo shel mi she-gidel otah aval ke=she-ha-abba chai yesh lichtov et shemo I again strongly suggest that anyone who wants to challenge my interepation of the psak look at the original and not guess based on his knowledge what 2 major poskim state. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 21:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] ============================================== My general take on this topic is that many halakhists bent over backwards to find solutions to the adoption problems mentioned (e.g. yichud). Perhaps it was due to the need for orphans to find homes or the human drive for childless couples to have families(especially when dealing with non-Jewish adoptions)? I never found much written about the meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times influenced the decisions. 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 Sun May 22 16:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 19:12:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah Message-ID: Pesachim 35a tells us that ?things which can come to chimutz, a person can fulfill his chiyuv of matza with them; this excludes those which come not to chimutz, but to sirchon.? This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: > Lo sochal alav chametz > Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos > Do not eat chametz with it > For seven days you will eat matzos Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. After all, if the pasuk had said, "Do not eat carrots; you must eat beef," would that lead us to conclude that carrots and beef have similar definitions? However, the truth is that the phrases don't *need* to save any logical connection. If Torah Sheb'al Peh says that this is how Torah Sheb'ksav chose to connect the definitions of chametz and matzah, it's just one of many similar cases. (I don't know whether this particular limud is called a "hekesh" or something else, but I hope my point is clear.) So I am not saying that the gemara was wrong for deriving these definitions from that pasuk. What I *AM* asking is why the gemara points to that pasuk, when there is a different pasuk it could have used instead. In my view, there is another pasuk that makes the very same point, but much more clearly, in a very pshat way. Why should we resort to a lomdishe juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: > Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos > Ki lo chametz > Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah > They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza > Because it did not become chametz > Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. How much clearer can it be, presuming that the Author wants a historical narrative, and not a legal text? If the word "ki - because" was missing, my argument would be much weaker, but it is *not* missing, and it is the cornerstone of my argument: It became matza *because* it did not become chametz. Chametz and matza are one and the same, differing only in that one is baked prior to chimutz (which prevents chimutz from happening), and the other does undergo chimutz. If dough does reach chimutz, getting baked later is irrelevant. Baking is relevant only to preventing chimutz, which is what creates matza: "They baked it into matza, because it did not become chametz." But I can't find anyone who explicitly connects Shemos 12:39 to the definitions of chametz and matza. Even if there is some weakness to this pasuk, and Devarim 16:3 is truly stronger, I would think that this would be mentioned in the gemara. Pesachim 35a should have said something like, "And R' Ploni retorted, Why do you cite Devarim, when we already have Shemos? But R' Almoni answers that Shemos is actually weaker because of..." Does anyone know of anything like this? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 00:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend 11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in techiyat hamettim. What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:40:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby Message-ID: The Gemara in Kiddushin (73b) has the following case. 4 women give birth to baby boys in the same house and one is the wife of a Cohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin, and one the wife of a mamzer. The Gemara states that the midwife is believed to say which is the son of the Cohen, which is the son of the Levi, etc. The Ran quoted by the Beis Yosef (Even Haezer Siman 4) states that this is a takana d'rabbanon that min hatorah the midwife is not believed (because it is a davar sheberva which requires 2 kosher witnesses). This brings up the some obvious questions: 1. What did they do before this takana? It is clear that men were not around during childbirth so how was there any yichus? 2. When was this takana made? 3. How could the Torah have such an impractical approach to these matters? There Torah was given to human beings to observe and for thousands of years women gave birth with no men present. 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:56:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: By coincidence a recent daf yomi (kiddushin 72b) discusses the future status of mamzerim. The following is a non-literal translation of an article by R Avihud Shwartz from yeshivat har etzion. Anyone who wishes to see the Hebrew can request me to forward the original. This is not a continuation of the previous discussion. The gemara says that R Yose says that in the future (le-atid le-vo) mamzerim and netinim will be tahor while R Meir disagrees. The gemara followed by Rif and Rosh pasken like R Yose. Tosafot asks why the need for a psak on events that will only occur le-atid le-vo. The Rosh answers that the gemara is talking about a safek mamzer. But even R Yose agree that cannot solve the problem of a certain mamzer. R Yose is teaching that there is no need to distance from safek rmamzers today since even in the future they will not be revealed. Hence, R Yose is teaching a practical halacha for today. The Rashba says the gemara does occasionally pasken on future questions and so takes the gemara literally. He is then left with the question how can the prohibition against marrying a mamzer disappear le-atid lavoh. The Rashba has an amazing answer. In the generation before the Eliyahu the rabbis will allow mamzerim as an emergency measure (horaat shaah) but when the Moshiach comes they will be pasul. So according to the Rashba at the time of the geulah there will be a one time heter allowing known mamzerim. To explain this Rashba R Shwartz that a condition for the geulah is the achdut of the nation. Mamazerut introduces a separation among Jews. Therefore for one generation the nation will have a complete achdut between families. During the "regel" all Jews are chaverim (Chahiga 27) . One explanation is that that during the holiday everyone is assumed to keep the rules of taharah. However another explanation is that during the holiday everyone is consider a chaver as part of achdut of the people. R Yose sees mamzerut as a type of Tumah and as the Moshiach comes close this tumah will be removed. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:19:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:19:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524091930.GB15539@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) : that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. ... : What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down : bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, : chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large : percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" : halacha. Well, since you already are reading this midrashically, how about... Someone who doesn't bow at modim isn't being used literally, but as a description of a kind of ingrate. Mouths the words of thank you, but isn't moved by them. And perhaps the point being made by the Zohar is that kifui tovah can be the first step, the point at which a soul goes off course and ends up -- after a downward spiral through worse offenses -- not being revivable at techiyas hameisim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:34:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:00:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see : http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ : and especially : http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 : In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even : greater... The thing is, though, the conversation before this one, which I am presuming motivated this post, was in particular about kibud av va'eim. Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. : children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises : him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful : for this is also greater. Off topic: When prospective fathers call me asking for advice about adoption, one of my first pieces of advice is that you can only do it right if you're being as selfish about it as any other man looking to become a father. If you are doing it because you can look at the child and see in their behavior and personallity some continuation of yourself into the future, fine. But a child needs parents to grow into a healthy adult, not baalei chessed. And I'm not sure if teaching a child this line of reasoning is healthy. It gets in the way of viewing themselves as part of the family's shalsheles. On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 04:10:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I never found much written about the : meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times : influenced the decisions. I think part of the problem is that much of this has to be done subconsciously. The conditions of the times change the metzi'us about which the poseiq rules. And also the poseiq has to try his best to come up with an answer based on the Torah rather than zeitgeist, but no human being's best will ever fully exclude the mood of their era. So the second people start discussing how the times impact pesaq, the discussion itself will change the answer -- and in ways that add rigidity to halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 03:14:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:14:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> References: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. > But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos > of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? I am answering for R Zilberstein so take my words with a grain of salt. First the thrust of the shiur was on the rights of the adopted parents and not on the mitzva of kibud av ve-em. He thus stressed that the adoptive parents have a right to all decisions (apitropus) on the child and not the genetic parents. In particular they make all the decisions concerning education etc including the wedding. As part of the argument he mentioned the zecher shlomo (and chida) that Avraham owed no kibud to Terach once he handed him over to Nimrod. Thus kibud av disappered (pakah) once Terach abandonded Avraham. Since it was not the topic of the shiur he did not discuss if the mitzvah to honor the adoptive parent was mi-deoraitam derabban or something else. I brought from Rav Melamed that it is "only" because of hakarat hatov but he stressed In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children Of course if the adoptive parents are abusive there is certainly no requirement of kibud or hakarat hatov. > Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there > still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein > that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. >> I again refer to YD 240:18 where the Ramah states that there is no mitzva of kibud av ve-am when the parent is a rasha. I also explicitly brought from R Zilberstein that the halachot of mourning are different and that one is required to sit shiva and say kaddish for a parent who is a rasha including one who abandonded the child and presumably an abusive parent. I also brought from Rav Schachter (second hand) that if sitting shiva for an abusive parent would present psychological problems than the child is not required to sit shiva. I would personally explain RHS that strong psychological pain can be pikuach nefesh and overrides shiva and kaddish which are only derabbanan > I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to > the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would > treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. again look at YD 240:18 with Shach, Taz, Pitchei Teshuva etc -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:31:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:31:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies > are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? > I don't think there is any issue here: babies are issued identity bracelets literally seconds after they are born, long before they leave the delivery room. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:40:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57444BBF.209@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:37 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting > down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than > murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar > large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a > "minor" halacha. I don't know how minor this is. Think about it; we're not talking about someone who never comes to shul, and never hears Modim in the first place. What kind of person comes to shul, hears Modim and knows what it is, and yet doesn't bow? Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion of politics real estate er, the Daf. Yes, definitely the Daf. Even if you're deep in, er, the sugya, so long as you're aware that the chazan is saying Modim, you bow. The kind of person who comes to shul and *doesn't* bow at Modim must have some kind of agenda, like the fellow who says "Modim Modim", or "Al Kan Tzipor...", and thus is a pretty serious sinner. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 06:46:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:46:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: <politics real estate er, the Daf. >> The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Looking at it again Tosafot (appears on 16b) asks the same question that I mentioned that all Jews have a share in the world to come. Nevetheless as I mentioned Kaf HaChaim brings a Zohar that one does lose one share in the world to come for not bowing at modin. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 09:46 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back >> bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion >> of politics real estate er, the Daf. > The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim > in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking > about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:38:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: <> I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 13:47:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:47:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744BDCB.7010207@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:38 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. Not to adopting, but to pretending that the child is not adopted, which was the fashion in the early and middle 20th century. By the '70s this fad had mostly passed, and it became accepted that adopted children need to know the truth from the beginning. > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. > see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 See the last piece, at the end of page 2, by R Eliezerov, which explains the confusion that some people have. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:02:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:02:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> Message-ID: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at > modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:05:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:05:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> Message-ID: <5744C20F.1030206@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 05:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at >> modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. That is clearly not whom the gemara or the zohar means. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 20:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 03:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years >his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years >and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara >literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) > >I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) >that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. >First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in >techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend >11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in >techiyat hamettim. Interesting. Is the Kaf haChaim, and the Zohar, interpreting the gemara in?Bava Kamma 16a? http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41181&st=&pgnum=106 https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%90_%D7%98%D7%96_%D7%91 That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, allegorically, to mean?that those people won't be resurrected? Kol Tuv,Josh Waxman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 03:14:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:14:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: As you know, the question of whether a Bar Mitsva boy continues counting Sefira is the topic of much discussion and Bar Mitzva derashot. Sefardi Poskim tend to assur, Ashkenazi tend to be lenient. But one of the major arguments in favor of a BAR mitsva boy continuing to count is that before Bar Mitzvah he was rabbinically obligated (mi-derabanan) because of Hinnukh. I was recently asked about what to advise a BAT Mitsva girl who has been carefully counting every night - under the same conditions. It would seem that in contradistinction to a minor male, there is no obligation of hinnukh on minor females to count sefira. Indeed, a parent has no obligation of hinnukh on mitsvot that will not be obligatory when the child becomes an adult. Hence, a parent need not train his daughter in mitsvot aseh she-haZeman gramman. See R. Yehoshua Neuwirth, The Halachoth of Educating Children, Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1999) Dinim Kelaliyyim, parag. 2, p. 2; R. Barukh Rakovsky, ha-Katan ve-Hilkhotav, I, ch. 2, no. 7. So I think that - even according to the lenient Ashkenazic sources - it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. But she should definitely continue counting (without a Berakha) because counting is the ikkar mitsva - not the berakha. If someone has sources or solid grounds to be meikeil - I'd be happy and thankful to hear them. Kol Tuv Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 06:48:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:48:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?_May_a_Chassan_May_a_Chassan_who_is_get?= =?windows-1252?q?ting_married_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omerwho_is_getting_mar?= =?windows-1252?q?ried_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omer_shave_earlier_in_the_day?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_on_the_32nd_of_the_Omer=2C_before_shekiah=3F?= Message-ID: <1464184133111.74887@stevens.edu> >From OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a Chassan who is getting married the night of Lag B?Omer shave earlier in the day, on the 32nd of the Omer, before shekiah? What is the halacha concerning relatives and other guests attending the wedding? A. The prevalent custom is that one may get married on the night of Lag B?Omer. The halacha in general regarding shaving is to wait until after sunrise on the morning of Lag B?Omer. Rav Belsky zt?l ruled that the chassan and the fathers of the chassan and kallah may shave on the 32nd day of the Omer before shekiah. Other family members and guests should not shave before shekiah. Rav Belsky zt?l did permit them to bring a shaver to the wedding and shave there after shekiah. (See ???? ????, Volume One, pages 109 ? 110) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 10:24:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:24:17 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] expulsions Message-ID: why could not the Dannites leave the megadef in their midst, what would have been so terrible? it was brought in the name of the Alter of Kelm that you see from here how important to remove bad influence from their midst [and Dan were not considered the cream of the crop]. this may be a source for those that disagree with the tack that removing students from an educational mossad should not be done easily , as pikuach nefesh. the nefesh in question according to the Alter would be the rest of the institution..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 08:44:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:44:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?May_I_listen_to_slow_music_during_sefir?= =?windows-1252?q?as_ha=92omer=3F?= Message-ID: <1464277506499.46892@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May I listen to slow music during sefiras ha?omer? A. Music should not be listened to during sefira whether it is fast or slow, even though slow music is less prone to stimulate one to dance. Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim I:166) questions whether one may listen to music for enjoyment throughout the year, and concludes that although throughout the year there are lenient opinions, but during the period of sefira one must be strict. If one was in a state of moodiness or discontent, Rav Belsky zt?l was of the opinion that even during sefira he may lift his spirits with slow music, provided he does not listen excessively. (See ???? ????, Volume One, p. 106) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 11:32:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:32:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. >> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Yichud%20Prohibition%20-%20Part%201.htm The article does bring other poskim including the LR who were strict. Rav Jachter's conclusion is: Obviously, anyone to whom this issue is relevant should consult his Rav for a ruling. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 14:42:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:42:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160526214223.GA15628@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The : gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: :> Lo sochal alav chametz :> Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos :> Do not eat chametz with it :> For seven days you will eat matzos : Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. But this is derashah, not sevara. : .... Why should we resort to a lomdishe : juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for : us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: :> Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos :> Ki lo chametz :> Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah :> They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza :> Because it did not become chametz :> Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay : Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become : chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* : become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. Except that this is a historical statement, descriptive, not prescritive. Their wheat dough was matzah because it happened not to become chameitz -- for reasons the pasuq wants us to notice. Teshu'as H' keheref ayin. And peshat is a pasuq in chumash like in all of Tanakh is more concerned with Mussar than halakhah. It's not a halakhah book at the expense of being a Mussar book. As they say about ayin tachas ayin, peshat is values, derashah exists to provide the halakhah givien the mapping of those values to a limited reality and limited humans. But does that "ki" mean that the lack of becoming chameitz is a defining feature? Maybe a lack of sirchon would also be good lehalakhah, but didn't come up. (Given how much more available wheat was in Egypt.) "Ki" could refer to sufficient cause, you are assuming the pasuq means necessary cause. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 33rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total Fax: (270) 514-1507 submission to truth, and what results? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 19:23:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:23:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> On 05/26/2016 02:32 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah > > There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. > Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's > forbidden, and that's that. >> > > Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 04:13:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:13:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:21:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Asher Weiss Re: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Despite what I wrote two hours ago, I was just notified by my Brother Dov that he discussed the issue with Rav Asher Weiss Shlita last night at his Thursday night Shiur in Har Nof Jerusalem. Rav Asher holds that as long as there is continuity, the girl can continue counting with a berakha after her bat Mitsva. Yiyasher Kochacha and Shabbat Shalom Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il ________________________________ From: Aryeh Frimer Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:13 PM To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 08:44:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:44:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim Message-ID: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Off line conversation that I'm belatedly moving to Avodah: I asked: Starting at 21:6 (then 21:8, and etc etc.) the phrase "lechem Elokim" is used a number of times. Onkelos translates lechem as korban each time -- which is exactly what one would guess. While my Hebrew isn't great, I couldn't find a single mention of this in my Mikraos G'dolos (just about every mention of that pasuk talks about the first part of the pasuk, about forcing a Kohen to give a get). Perhaps it's just so obvious that lechem means korban here, that it's literally unremarkable. But, still, the use of the word "lechem" seems odd to me. It's as if the Torah is going out of its way to make things sound _more_ anthropomorphic, more primitive, than it needs to. (Granted -- now that I think about it, the phrase "rayach nichoach" also seems gratuitously anthropomorphic -- but: (a) there is some commentary on that phrase; and (b) perhaps we hear "rayach nichoach" so often we're just used to it.) Does anybody have any thoughts on why the Torah, after using the words "korban" or "olah" this entire Sefer, suddenly switches to "lechem" in this perek? R Seth Mandel answered: : From a linguistic point of view, I do not consider the usage remarkable. : This is the House of HQBH, and the qorbanot are His Daily Portion. : The use of the word lechem to describe "portion/allotment" I consider : a perfectly normal, if poetic, term. R MIcha Berger responded: ... It would be interesting to confirm this... Does anyone associate Vayiqra 21 with qorbanos that are forced by the calendar, to the exclusion of chatas, asham, todah, etc...? Does qedushas kohanim have more to do with such qorbanos than others? (And if so, does this relate to which qorbanos were allowed on bamos back in the days of bamos?) Anyone else have any thoughts? (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this significant at all?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 09:11:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:11:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim In-Reply-To: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: <574871A5.80303@sero.name> On 05/27/2016 11:44 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with > "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this > significant at all?) We say twice a day "Vaydaber YKVK ... es korboni *lachmi* le'ishai, rei'ach nichochi". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 11:52:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160527185244.GB24209@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:48:27AM +0000, Joshua Waxman via Avodah wrote: : That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is : located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, : allegorically, to mean that those people won't be resurrected? Teaser for my post But the name of the city was "Luz" originally by micha ? [15 Kislev '765] - Fri, Dec 16, 2005 And he [Ya'aqov] called the name of that place Beis-el, but the name of the city was Luz originally. - Bereishis 28:19 Luz, the original name for Beis-el, is apparently the name of a kind of tree, usually translated "chestnut". It's one of the kinds of wood from which Ya'aqov avinu made sticks for the sheep and goats to look at... Bereishis Rabba (69:8) discusses the amazing properties of living in the city of Luz: * They always told the truth. * No one in the city died. When people got old and tired, they needed to move out for nature to take its course. * The city was never conquered by Sancheirev, and wasn't destroyed by Nevuchadnetzar at the end of the first commonwealth... Luz is also the name of a special bone in the body, where the skull and spine meet. Two medrashim associate the luz bone with Hadrian y"sh.... Luz seems particularly connected with Yaiaqov, the one who renames it. First, his service of G-d centers around emes, truth, the middah exemplified by the citizens of Luz. He uses the luz sticks... ... The mishnah says "derekh eretz qodmah laTorah -- proper behavior in society is a prerequisite to Torah." Our aggaditos and midrashim seem to converge on underscoring that point. Luz is the city of truth, it has the permanence of truth both territorially and in the lifespans of its inhabitants. And it's truth, the personality trait about which Yaiaqov centers his service of Hashem, which determines techiyas hameisim. All of these medrashim refer to Luz, to the trait. When referring to applying the pursuit of truth to Torah study or worshipping Hashem, then we progress from Luz to Beis-el. The stick shows the influence of environment... The bone luz is situated just where the mind connects to the body. It is therefore, in a very real sense, "beis keil", G-d's "home" in this world. Ya'aqov builds a circle of stones in which to sleep at this spot, which -- as R' Hirsch notes ad loc -- is the first home of Israel. He gets a vision of a ladder between heaven and earth, an externalized luz bone between mind and body. Once one has the foundation of "Luz", one has the proper personality and attitude to provide some solidity in time and in social context. Then one is capable of building that derekh eretz into Torah, making their soul a house of G-d. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 34th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 and maintain a stable relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 29 05:36:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 08:36:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> References: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160529123638.GB24648@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:23:15PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>> There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. :>> Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's :>> forbidden, and that's that. :> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. : No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you : were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. OTOH, given the size of the observant American community loyal to RMF's pesaqim, anything he says can't simply be dismissed as "rare" either. RYBS was meiqil as well. And, FWIW, was R' Zvi Flaum, a talmid of R' Dovid Lifshitz's - now RY of Shaarei Tzion, oour LOR back when we adopted and the question first arose. I am also curious... RMMS pasqened? Didn't he generally delegate that role to others, leaving himself as head mashpia / moreh derekh, rather than moreh hora'ah? Did this somehow become an emotionally charged machloqes, like eruv for some reason tends to? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 36th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in Fax: (270) 514-1507 being a stable and reliable partner? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 05:25:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:25:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: R. Aryeh Frimer posits that a girl who becomes Bat Mizva during sefira should not continue counting with a bracha after becoming bat mitzva, since, unlike a boy, she had no mitzva to count as a minor because of chinuch. I find this very counterintuitive; on the contrary, it seems to me that a girl has more reason to continue counting with a bracha than a boy. A boy upon becoming bar-mitzva during sefira goes from a status of non-chiyuv (obligation) to chiyuv; one may question whether what he counted in a state of non-chiyuv "counts" when he enters a state of chiyuv. On this point, some poskim say that there was a chiyuv all along, at least rabbinically, so no fundamental change took place; some disagree. A girl, on the other hand, has no chiyuv either before or after her bar mitzva; in this respect, nothing changed at all when she became bat mitzva. Thus, if the girl has been making a bracha on sefira throughout the sefira period, in keeping with Ashkenazi practice, it seems to me that she should continue to make a bracha on sefira after becoming bat mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:42:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:42:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas Message-ID: my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 08:34:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:34:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parshah Dual Dichotomy 5776 Message-ID: <1464622469992.18876@stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6863 For many of us in the know, as well as to the surprise of anyone who might be thinking of traveling to or from Eretz Yisrael, say anytime from after Pesach until Shabbos Chazon, right before Tisha B'Av, something is off. I am referring to the weekly parshah, which would not be the same regularly scheduled one in Chutz La'aretz as it is in Eretz Yisrael. Truthfully, this type of dichotomy actually happens not so infrequently, as it essentially occurs whenever the last day of a Yom Tov falls on Shabbos. In Chutz La'aretz where Yom Tov Sheini is halachically mandated,[1] a Yom Tov Krias HaTorah is publicly leined, yet, in Eretz Yisrael (unless by specific Chutznik minyanim[2]) the Krias HaTorah of the next scheduled parshah is read. This puts Eretz Yisrael a parshah ahead until the rest of the world soon 'catches up', by an upcoming potential double-parshah, which each would be read separately in Eretz Yisrael. See the above URL for much more about this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:18:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jack Stroh via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 18:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> References: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Message-ID: <20160531013511.GA21014@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 02:18:52PM -0400, Jack Stroh via Avodah wrote: : Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with : Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the : disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. Back a step... Our current leining schedule post-dates Chazal, the standardization ceoms from the geonim. And originally it was in use in Bavel. In EY, 3 or 3-1/2 year leining systems were more common. So the systme was designed for chu"l; the parshios chu"l shuls aren't doubling up aren't supposed to be doubled. It's Israel that slipped out of proper alignment with geonic intent. So the question really is why doesn't Israel fall back into line and minimize their drift from the original geonic schedule. Well, this year there are no doubled parshios for them to split until Matos-Masei -- just in time to realign Devarim with the 9 days. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 02:17:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:17:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children Message-ID: <> <> I agree with Micha. I again bring a list of prominent poskim who agree with RMF so it certainly is not a solitary opinion. I would strongly argue that in practice most people follow the lenient opinion. The article I previously quoted brought those to disagreed and concluded that one should check it out with his local rabbi. He certainly did not dismiss the lenient opinion. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. Rav Nachum Rabinovitch (the prominent Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivat Hesder of Maaleh Adumim) is cited in Techumin 10:317 by Rav Azariah Berzon as agreeing with the aforementioned Poskim who permit adoptive parents to have Yichud with their adoptive children. Rav Rabinovitch notes that Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:08:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:08:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160531180845.GA12478@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:17:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Rabinovitch notes that : Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. R' Zundel Salant says that it was the zekhus of adopting the children of those who died in makas choshekh that we were redeemed from Mitzrayim. Since we are obligated to remember yetzi'as Mitzrayim, I can't call it "time immemorial", but since our birth as a nation, certainly. >From : Chamushim Hashem brought the nation around, via the path of the desert, the Red Sea; and the Children of Israel arose chamushim (to be defined) from the Land of Egypt. - Shemos 13:8 ... and the Jews enthusiastically departed from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Unqelus (ad loc) ... with good deeds... - Jerusalem Targum (ad loc) ... one in five. -Tanchuma (Warsaw ed. #1), Mechilta ... and the Jews departed with five infants from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Yonasan (ad loc) Rashi defines "chamushim as "armed", which underlies the Targumim of Unqelus and Yerushalmi. Armed in a spiritual sense, prepared with good deeds. Another definition would be from chameish, five, leading to the medrash concluding that only 1/5 of the Jewish were saved from Egypt. Rashi adds that the other 4/5 of the population died in Egypt during the plague of darkness. These were the people who didn't merit redemption; those who believed in the Egyptian paganism and wanted to stay. Deriving chamushim from the number five is also the point of departure for the Targum Yonsan's "departed with five infants." But the medrash on Shemos, describing the Egypt experience, told us that we had six children at a time. How then can the Targum Yonasan here mean that every Jew left with five children, as though this smaller number is something that should impress us? The Be'er Yoseif therefore believes the naive read of the Targum Yonasan is incorrect. Instead, the Be'er Yoseif explains all these targumim in light of each other. The word chamushim was chosen not despite the ambiguity, but because of all its connotations. Four fifths of the Jewish people died rather than being saved. But what about their children? The youth didn't deserve death, even if they agreed with their parents -- as children, they aren't accountable or punishable for their crimes. The Be'er Yoseif explains that this means that each of the 600,000 men left Egypt had to have left with five families of children -- his own, and those of four families left orphaned by this punishment. Far more than the six-at-a-time that were born to them. This is not only the intent of the Targum Yonasan, but also, raising others' children the "good deeds" of the Jerusalem Targum, as well as the "zerizus", the enthusiasm, of the Targum Unqelus. They were prepared and surrounded by the mitzvah of taking in these children in need. Today we think of adoption as something someone does when they r"l can't have children of their own. However, in light of this devar Torah, we see that this mitzvah played a central role in defining us as a people. According to the Be'er Yosef, it is the merit of adopting orphans that rendered us ready for the redemption from Egypt! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 09:15:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ie in ghettoized Europe , the Accursed Wandering Jew was only the killer of the 'saviour'; not much better in Moslem Middle East. In Modern Times, it can't refer to the million chassidim , to whom isolationism is the ideal , not to mention theologies of the value of the gentile. In Litvish models, ideally the Jew should be confined to the beis medrash , and the spouse 'kvoodah pnima'. It is only the lack of Manna that interferes and forces bedieved one out of the ghetto. The OTD Jews of the last 200 yrs who have impacted every walk of life and every class of endeavor in academia , commerce , culture and liberal polity can not have been what chazal had in mind. The Israel model is the most vilified political entity on Earth. If it's only a messianic concept , then it has nothing to do with the Jews , only the Messiah. so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:40:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:40:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? > > SNIP > > so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, > practically. > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or they need work in this area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 03:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:25:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/31/2016 9:40 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in > Yishayahu. It is a real concept. No, it is not. > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? The phrase ohr l'goyim doesn't exist. There are three verses where something similar exists. Isaiah 49:6 says that Hashem has placed us l'ohr goyim. Isaiah 42:6 also says that Hashem placed us l'ohr goyim. And Isaiah 60:3 says that nations will walk in our light. There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us. And it's not for any specific generation, I don't think, but all of them. We are the example. Whenever I hear "ohr l'goyim" it irks me, because it's such a mistake. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> References: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160601165119.GB20066@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:25:31PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The : former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the : nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among : nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us.... This is clearly peshat in Yeshaiah 60:3, "beholkhu goyim le'oreikh..." But "le'or goyim", in 42:6 and 49:6... I would have said something close to the reverse; to me le'or goyim sounds more like an imperative. An or lagoyim is a descriptive construction. Yeshaiah would be saying that we are light for the nations. L'or goyim is more prescriptive, we are "to provide light for nations". Not as a light, but in to be one. And it's up to us to actually illuminate. BTW, according to Rashi (42:6) those goyim are the shevatim, not other nations. And according the Metzudas David, it's a messianic prophecy, not an imperative before-hand. The thing is, we're obligated to serve as a nation of kohanim in the here-and-now regardless of Yeshaiah. So I see this as a discussion of peshat in the pesuqim, with no pragmatic difference to hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 39th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliable person? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:22:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:22:27 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it >> practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. > It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then > show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other > nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or > they need work in this area. my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of humanity in all generations; except possibly recent times, when those clearly NOT living a halachic life are seen by some at least to have been a source of blessing... furthermore, we fast on the day the Bible was translated, so we can't even say that the other Abrahamic religions is the explanation, since they become in a sense Fruit of a poisonous tree, to use the legal analogy From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 02:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:58:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: I am gratified that my understanding that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during the sefira period can continue to count with a bracha was also expressed to RAFrimer by RMH. Unlike RAFrimer, I do not think that this this constitutes a "fundamental misunderstanding" of brachot women make on time-bound mitzvoth, according to the Rema and standard Ashkenazic practice. If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her chiyuv-level not having changed. I am completely unsurprised that Rav Asher Weiss paskened that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during sefira can continue counting with a bracha, based on his understanding of the mitzvah of sefirat haomer, as appears in Minchat Asher Vayikra chapter 51. R. Asher asks a series of questions that indicate that sefirat haomer is different from other mitzvoth which are performed verbally (see there). He then explains as follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting avodat Hashem. Shofar, lulav, matza are examples of the former. Biur chametz and maakeh are examples of the latter. We make brachot on both categories of mitzvot, but there are differences between them. Sefirat Haomer is a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the mitzvah itself; the avodaat Hashem of sfirat haomer is knowing the count every day, not saying the words themselves. Saying the words is the action by which the desired result is achieved (unlike other verbal mitzvoth like kriyat shma and hallel in which saying the words themselves is avodat Hashem). R. Asher explained elsewhere that mitzvot in which the tozaa is the mitzvah do not require kavana , which is why someone who answers the question "what's the count tonight?" without intending to perform the mitzvah of sefira is nevertheless considered to have performed the mitzvah. In sefira, when a day is counted, when the result of the counting has been achieved (the person knows, by counting, what day it is), the mitzvah has been done. My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) , even if strictly he is not obligated; when he becomes a gadol, he is considered not to have missed any days, and can continue to count with a bracha. As Rav Asher explicitly paskened, this applies to a k'tana as well. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 04:36:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:36:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25c18a21-7bfc-78f4-f9a0-30ba738263a7@zahav.net.il> To give a metaphor: If the machine generating the light is working improperly, the light could be dangerous and it needs to be sent out for repair. Without getting into the question of how the machine broke down (God directing or us choosing to break it), it is clear that if we aren't doing the job, a tikkun is required Ben On 6/1/2016 6:22 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged > history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of > humanity in all generations; From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 07:33:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:33:30 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>>It shows we or they need work in this area. ---- meila i can understand blaming us . but to blame 'they' , the goyim is saying they refused to hear the gospel..... >>>>>>If the machine generating the light is working improperly ---- or properly working light, just that the potential buyers threw it in garbage I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to listen to our message... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:21:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: I am responding on avodah to some remarks on arevim > So if the health minister happens to be ... anti-vaxx ..., suddenly the > halacha has to turn around?! And after the next election it turns around > again?! Look at what happened in Israel two years ago, when German > was health minister and decided to end fluoridation. Now Litzman is > restarting it. Was everyone supposed to change their minds in those two > years, or accept that the truth changed, just because the government did?! This completely misunderstands the role of government rules. Besides dina de-malchuta we learn that if not for the government we would live in anarchy everyone decides for themselves what is best. Medieval philosophers and commentaries debate why one must listen to the government. Opinions range from divine rights to the king can kick you out to more modern theories that the citizens accept the rule by staying in the country and especially by accepting privileges from the government like the use of roads, army, schools etc. In consonance with the Mishna we listen to the government because without it there is chaos. The government specifies safety laws, traffic laws, tries thieves and murderers, has laws against sexual and drug abuse There is nothing in these theories about the government always being right. Obviously, governments are made from people who make decisions and different countries have different laws some more liberal and some more conservative. However in each country one is required by HALACHA to follow the government regulations (as long as they don't conflict with halacha). If the regulations change over time then yes the observant Jew much change his behavior just as he changes when doctors change their views or when a bet din changes their views. When batei dinim in different locales disagree then each community must follow their local bet din. Pointing out that a different bet din disagrees doesn;t matter one must follow the local bet din. Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. ------------------------- In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Some possibilites that have been offered include 1) There is a mitzvat aseh to listen to the rabbis 2) It is based on logic similar to above, otherwise it leads to chaos He went into a side discussion of the status of sevara (deoraita?) and a Rav Akiva Eiger. 3) The rabbis are smarter than us and so we should listen. RMA points out that there is an intrinsic problem. If the reason is too good then we are back to question that it becomes a deoraita. If it is weak then listening to the rabbis becomes wishy-washy, ie if circumstances change, if one disagrees with their reasoning etc. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 09:49:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603165041.NPMS27913.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> R S Newman has posed the question in a provocatively interesting way. Thanks! Musing out loud, is it possible that the concept applies to Torah/Torah values in addition to its people? For example, doesn't the Rambam offer that Xtianity and Islam, both "offshoots", if you will, of Judaism, have moved the world's population (at least partially, in the case of some part of Xtianity) away from A"Z? As a second data point, R Jonathan Sacks often points out how many of the world's ideas are rooted in Torah (e.g., equality (even the King!) before the law, which, in turn, gave rise to (because it was a necessary pre-condition of) democracy, etc.). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 11:04:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: <133b75.a02d7da.44832097@aol.com> ohr lagoyim when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ....so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. >>>> It began long before Chazal, in the time of Avraham Avinu. (The concept, not the exact words.) And Yitzchak and Yakov. "All the nations of the world will be blessed through you." For the incredible moral and intellectual influence the Jews have had on the rest of the world throughout history, see Thomas Cahill's book, *The Gifts of the Jews* and read Dennis Prager's review of the book in *First Things* which summarizes the book's main points. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/11/002-cahills-gift Hirsch in the introduction to his commentary on Tehillim shows that Dovid Hamelech meant for Sefer Tehillim to be used as a book of prayer by all the nations of the world and indeed, this has come to pass, with Tehillim having been translated into practically every language in the world. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:22:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:22:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:37:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:33:30AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . : so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to : listen to our message... As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those words exist anyway? RBW assumes that it does, and therefore if we are unhappy with the rate of progress, we should asume the light needs fixing, not that its users are neglecting it. But I have no doubt that our influence has had a central role in the progress of civilization. Whether or not we consciously worked at it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 11:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:20:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier For a detailed answer see http://rabbikaganoff.com/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:11:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> References: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57539853.9030809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:22 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the > : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? > > The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? The first 11 chapters of Devarim is a tochacha. But it's not curses, which is what we usually associate with the term. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > words exist anyway? In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; that people will come to EY to do business with Shevet Zevulun, and while they're there they will do some touristing and visit Y'm to see what is to be seen, and be so impressed that they'll accept the 7 mitzvos and bring zivchei tzedek. So there's no missionising, no outreach, just us being ourselves, and those who are already prone to be attracted to the light will be attracted. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 09:04:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:04:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160605160452.GA11606@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:20:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. : The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier : For a detailed answer see : http://rabbikaganoff.com/ With all due respect to RYK, what I said earlier is historically correct: the currently leining system was designed by geonim for Bavel. So chu"l leining for the 8th of Pesach instead of Acharei-Mos was correct scheduling. It is Israel that got ahead. So the major question is why does EY wait until Matos Mas'ei to split a double parashah and fall back into sync with the design? And that's easy -- because all the double parshios before then are already split! If you want to ask why the ge'onim have us splitting all the double parshios, yes, that has to do with timing the tochachah to be 2 Shabbasos before Shavuos. But that's not a why we didn't catch up to EY yet thing -- catching up was never a goal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 05:45:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 08:45:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wrote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? There are multiple r Avigdor miller shiurim where he demonstrates clearly that Jewish ideas have slowly entered the goyishe (western) world thru us. Where Jews did not live, our teachings have yet to have the same effect (far east, Africa, etc) This is also the message of r Aryeh Kaplan in 'If You Were God' http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48970646.html See r ken Spiro's 12 part series world perfect where he demonstrates that this has occurred http://www.aish.com/sem/wp/ Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c learn from us) Its true we spent most of our history just trying to survive, but by osmosis (and more) our ideas and ideals have molded and raised the level of humanity as a whole Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 10:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:09:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> References: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> Message-ID: <57545CC9.3050301@sero.name> On 06/05/2016 08:45 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient > madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be > dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c > learn from us) The gemara says that "Israel was only exiled among the nations so that converts should be added to them". Note the passive form. Even in galus we were not expected to actively recruit gerim, but rather to live among the nations so that those who are naturally attracted to our way of life would be able to find us and avail themselves of an option that they would otherwise never know about. Not even a symbolic hishtadlus is expected of us; we are simply to do our own thing, but in a place where potential gerim will see us. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 12:46:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:46:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those : >words exist anyway? : : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; ... The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an imperative to put in conscious effort as well. My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to avodas Hashem. Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat in "le'or goyim". There is also a possibility that le'or goyim is a messianic prophecy. Like And the same questions could be raised with "Halkhu amim rabim... Ki miTzion teitzei Sorah..." De facto, it will? We must act in a way that causes Torah to be spread from Zion? Now? Le'asid lavo? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 13:00:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:00:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitzva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: In discussing the case of a girl who became bat mitzva in the course of sefira, it is instructive to consider the analysis of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik (the Rov) of the Bahag's opinion on sefirat haomer (see Harrei Kedem Volume II chapter 112). The position of the Bahag is that one who does not count one day of omer does not make a bracha on subsequent days The Rov did not accept the widely-held opinion that the Bahag holds that there is one mitzva to count all 49 days. Rather, each day of sefira is a separate mitzva. However, on each day, there is a "din mesuyam", a particular law that the previous days have been counted. If this is not true, one is counting not sequentially, but with skipping, not the count the Torah specified. Skipping a day invalidates each and every subsequent day, not the totality of the count. As is well known, according to the Bahag, one who forgot to count at night counts during the day without a bracha, but may subsequently count with a bracha. The Rov asked: according to the Bahag, does one fulfill the mitzva of sefira during the day? If so, why doesn't one make a bracha? If not, why may one continue counting subsequent days with a bracha? The Rov held that the Bahag held like Rabbeinu Tam that the mitzva of sefira is only at night, and when one counts during the day he does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all. However, when counting during the day, one does a "maase sefira", an act of counting, even if he does not perform "mitzvat sefira". This maase sefira makes his counting connected, and he can continue counting with a bracha, although there was one day on which he did not perform the mitzva of sefira at all. According to the Bahag, one who forgot to count the 49th night gains nothing by counting the following day, since one does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all during the day. Counting during the day is not in itself a mitzva, but only helps to enable counting subsequent days with a bracha. Even if one were to say that a katan (minor) does not have a chiyyuv (obligation) to count sefira, and a katan that counts has not performed the mitzva of sefira, nevertheless his count is a "maase sefira", an act of counting. In this way the count of a minor is similar to counting during the day; it is a masse sefira which enables one to continue counting with a bracha, even when the katan becomes a gadol. Clearly, this applies to a minor girl exactly as it does to a minor boy. The Rov noted that even if one were to know that he will not be able to count every night until Shavuot, he counts every night with a bracha until he misses, since each night's count is a separate mitzva, and skipping a future night will not invalidate a previous night's mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 23:49:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:49:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 6/5/2016 10:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > : >words exist anyway? > : > : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; > ... > > The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort > and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an > imperative to put in conscious effort as well. > > My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a > statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being > a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? And I think the answer is "no". > So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to > shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim > either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to > avodas Hashem. Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the nations of the world. > Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. > [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, > hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. And again, no chiyuv here. > > Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... > > It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that > is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat > in "le'or goyim". No one is saying it isn't a good thing. But we prioritize, and whether a thing is an obligation or not goes into the calculation of those priorities. This isn't an obligation. To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 19:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 22:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ain machlokess bo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5b76f9d9-80e4-c222-c9e6-881437eb0fb9@gmail.com> In //Dynamics of Dispute/,/ I develop the idea that the Rambam, when he says that there is no //machlokess/ /b'payrush mekubal miSinai/,/ he does not mean that there were no disputes *about* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. He means that there was no disagreeing *against* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. In note 12 (p. 82) I wrote that in addition to indications that this is so from other writings of the Rambam and their applications to talmudic sources, The //Mevo HaTalmud//, attributed to Shmuel HaNaggid, indicates this definition of the word //machlokess// as well. I have just found that the Meiri on Avos 5:19, regarding a different subject, explicitly gives this definition to the word //machlokess//, explicitly negating it in the other sense. He writes: It seems to me that [the use of the word] ''machlokess'' attaches only to the one who responds to the first [speaker]. I.e. ...when a second person responds [to the first] and says, ''What you say is proper to do is improper, or what you taught is wrong,'' this [response] is the ''machlokess.''...the "machlokess" only refers to one of the two sides, the one that responds to the first. Another way to put it: Sometimes the word //machlokess/ /refers to an opposing opinion, not to two or more opposing opinions. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 05:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:56:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> >> No one is saying it isn't a good thing. ..To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. R Avigdor miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 09:22:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:22:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. ------ the only problem i have with their approach is that , had the Jewish people been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies their job was basically done---since a billion xtians then took over , and a billion moslems after that . the direct interaction of jews w goyim in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to have minimal direct impact . where jews have major impact in modern times , in science , entertainment , ,media etc are ways that clearly were not only not what Scripture had in mind, but in many cases directly contravening Tradition.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 04:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:56:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R > Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the > requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo > tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban > becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita > is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 12:49:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:49:09AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to :> shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim :> either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to :> avodas Hashem. : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the : nations of the world. So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a tzivui? :> Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. : Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. (I just noticed this tied to "mamlekhes kohanim" quite smoothly.) We also see from hilkhas geneivas aku"m that chilul hasheim and qiddush hasheim involve whether we ch"v distance aku"m from AYH or merit to draw them closer. So I guess we could add qiddush hasheim and avoiding chilul among the list of potetial imperatives that say le'or goyim in more clearly tzivui terms. Going back to the parshanus of le'or goyim... RET posted on Areivim in 2012 (quoted then by RnCL, with permission at , quoting IE and the Radaq (49:6) that le'or goyim refers to Yeshaiah's nevu'ah 00 the light is the nations seeing that his nevu'ah was fulfilled. And thus not about the Jewish people at all. To which RnCL replied citing the Rashi (as I already wrote, in one place he takes "goyim" to mean shevatim, and thus uplifting other Jews) and then quotes the other Radaq (42:6) and translated: > And so you would be also l'or goyim like it says "And nations shall > walk to/in your light -v'helchu goyim l'orech" [Yeshiyahu 60:3 - where > it is pretty clear that it is the nation Israel being talked about] > and the light is the Torah that shall go out to them from Tzion. And then translating Metzudas David (ad loc): > L'or goyim - to light the eyes of all the nations to know that Hashem > hu haElokim. Closing with her own thesis: > And indeed I think that it is the other pasuk quoted by the Radak, ie > v'helchu goyim l'orech that is the one that is the real source for the > common understanding which is usually labelled as Or l'goyim. That pasuk > is quoted all over the place (unlike l'or goyim), for example in dozens > of places in midrash raba, tanchuma, pesikta d'rav kahana etc And a lot > of the commentary in the various midrashic sources involves analogies > between the shemen zayis that lights the Beis HaMikdash and Yisrael who > lights the world -eg Shemos Raba which goes on to say and so our fathers > were called zayis because they gave light to all with their emunah. > > That is, to my mind, the concept which we understand to be or l'goyim is > unquestionably there in the sources - it is just generally drawn from a > psuk that is much more of a mouthful (Yeshiyahu 60:3). L'Or goyim, does, > it would seem according to all the classic commentators, mean a light to > the nations, as we would understand it, but, at least on one of the two > pasukim where it is used, it is understood as referring to Isaiah himself, > not the Jews in general (but note that it is clearly a good thing, > and high praise of Isaiah, that he should be considered this). And, > as so often seems to be the case (and as discussed with tikun olam) > the phrase which tends to roll off the lips in the common parlance is > not the strictly correct biblical terminology, but the one that sort of > sounds right to the ear of the layperson to get to the concept of which > they are aware. To continue her thought to focus on 60:3, I see BB 75a explains vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as a messianic prophecy, and someting HBH will do, not even hilkhisa demeshichasa. Metzudas David: "As to say, from you they will learn the ways of Hashem and you will light their eyes." Also, not clearly a tzivui. The Tanya 1:36 takes "vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as messianic, and thus not a tzivui for the here-and-now The Malbim takes the pasuq as prophetic and descriptive, linking the seifa, "yeilekhu leneged zarchakha" to "ukhvodo alayikh yra'eh" in the previous pasuq. Okay, given 60:2, we could presume 60:3 isn't imperative either. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:38:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:38:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> References: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> Message-ID: <20160606203815.GB983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:56:44AM -0400, M Cohen wrote: : R Avigdor Miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out : and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own : backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Maybe in theory we should clean up our own backyard first, but... Anyone in kiruv would question whether they are all that separable. My own most inspiring Shabbasos were in NCSY, experiencing it with people for whom it was one of their first few attempts to observe Shabbos. Similarly, anyone who has given a shiur will tell you that the topics they prepared to teach others are those they know best. And even during the shiur -- umitalmidai yoseir mikulam. Maybe if we invested effort being a mamlekhes kohanim, we would be better at avoiding messing up our own backyard too. And for a Hirschain perspective... The Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch by Rabbi Mayer Schiller http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/humanisim_rsrh.pdf Jewish Action (Summer 5759/1981) pp. 21-26. Vol.49, No. 3 On pg 24 (PDF pg 4) he quotes 19 Letters where RSRH talks about a world in which every Jew would be a mutely eloquent example and teacher of universal righteousness and universal love; if thus the dispersed of Israel were to show themselves everywhere on earth as the glorious priests of God and pure humanity... RSRH makes a duty to set an example. Not to actively teachm but not to ignore the example we set either. And then there's the Semag (Asei 74), which I translated for : I already expounded to the exiled from Jerusalem who are in Spain and the other Roman exiles that now that the exile has gone on far too long, it is appropriate for Israel to separate from the vanities of the world and grab onto the signet of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is truth, and not to lie neither to Jew nor to gentile. Not to mislead them in any way. To sanctify themselves even in what is permitted to them, as it says, "The remnant of Israel do not commit sin, do not speak lies, and one won't find a false tongue in their mouths." (Tzefaniah 3:13) And when Hashem comes to save them, the nations will say, "It was done justly, for they are a people of truth and the Torah of truth is in their mouths." But if they act with the gentiles with trickery, they will say, "See what the Holy One, blessed be He did, that chose for His portion thieves and con-men." Also, it says, "I will plant her [the Jewish People] for myself in the land..." (Hosheia 2:25) A person doesn't plant a kur [of seed] but to produce numerous kurim. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, planted Israel among the lands so that converts will join them (Pesachim 87b) and every time that they conduct themselves with trickery, who will attach to them? It seems that unless we act in a way that makes it obvious to non-Jews that our redemption would be just, the Semag expects us to continue to languish here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:39:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> On 06/06/2016 03:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I > : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the > : nations of the world. > > So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > tzivui? 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. 2) What is the origin of This idea you keep pushing, that "mamlechet kohanim" has some connection to outreach to anyone, let alone nochrim? 2a)Since when is that a kohen's job? 2b) Pshat in "kohanim" is princes, as in "uvnei David kohanim" (Rashi) This whole idea is at most, again, a nice drasha for a rov in shul, or for a mussar sefer, but certainly not relevant to halacha. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:43:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:43:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.)" What you suggested is what the Ran says, however, the Ramban explicitly rejects this idea. R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? Therefore, he explains that by dinim d'rabbanan what is not important is the actual mitzva act, but the fact that you listened to the Chachamim and did not rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:51:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I referenced who explains the Ramabam. R' Meir Simcha makes a very different assumption. He assumes that every d'rabbanan is NOT necessarily the ratzon hashem and therefore by d'rabbanans what is important is that you listen to the chachamim and not rebel, the actual action is not as important ayen sham. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 12:42:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:42:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160607194229.GA27374@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:22:53AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : the only problem i have with their approach is that, had the Jewish people : been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies : their job was basically done -- since a billion xtians then took over, : and a billion moslems after that. the direct interaction of jews w goyim : in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to Unless you think our presence had a cultural impact that explains things like why the doctrine of trinity evolved and why they don't go on Crusades anymore. On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a :> tzivui? : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. Targum Yonasan ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be called on to serve. Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. Kehunah is a duty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:22:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> On 6/7/2016 11:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:39:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <575730E4.7050400@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :>So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > :>tzivui? > : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a > : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be > : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; > : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. > Targum Yonasan You mean, of course, "Yonasan", i.e. a version of Targum Yerushalmi that a printer mistakenly attributed to Yonasan. But of course we all know that, I hope. I just expected to see the scare quotes. > ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be > called on to serve. A kohen's shimush is the avodah in the BHMK, not anything else. It's (1) a promise, not a tzivuy or a nevuah; and (2) has nothing to do with "service" to anyone. > Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many > hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against > this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in > inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job > by definition. *If* it's a job, it's a job of avodah BHMK, and the pasuk is promising that if you do as I tell you then I will award you this prestigious job. But Rashi says the *pshat* here is not a job at all, but a status. He has to say that, because al pi pshat non-bechorim were *never* intended to be kohanim meshamshim. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:01:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573627.6060306@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" > as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem > lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". 1. I think you got that backwards. Ve'atem tihyu is the prat, and Eileh had'varim is the klal. 2. I fail to see the point you're deriving from this. How does this make it a tzivuy of any kind? However you read it, it's still a promise, a proposed deal, not a command. > As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. > Kehunah is a duty. Meyuchad is not a duty, it's a status. What one is meyuchad *for* can be a duty, as here (except for the problem that non-bechorim were never intended to do avodah), but the yichud is not a duty. "Mekudeshes" doesn't mean "obligated in the duties of a wife", it's the status of being dedicated to one man, though that status by its nature *comes* with those obligations. And "harei at mekudeshes li" is certainly not a command to do those things that a wife is obligated to do for her husband. It's predicated on an understanding that she *will* do them, but it's not itself any kind of command. But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:40:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 05:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries > : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. > > Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 23:02:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:02:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: The Megilla describes how Ruth sneaks in to where Boaz is sleeping and lies down at his feet and that Boaz woke up in the middle of the night to find her there. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (19b) states that Boaz had a bigger Nisayon with Ruth then Yosef had with Potifer's wife because Ruth was single and tehora (see Rashi there). I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? I would bet that the answer for everyone (male) reading this is no. The thought would not even cross our mind. So why does the Gemara state that this was a tremendous nisayon for Boaz? It's not like there is no yetzer hara for arrayos today, there certainly is, just look around at what is going on in the world around us and even within the frum community. And yet, IMHO the average person would not see the situation described in the Megilla as a nisayon at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:09:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:09:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. Ben On 6/8/2016 8:02 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you > woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) > lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 13:01:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:01:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up Message-ID: in this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work in the long run. i wonder if the claim is true, and if so, how could there be a hetter for such a thing---multiples are riskier than singletons; i can't imagine that a posek could allow that jsut for budgetary reasons... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:23:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:23:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > > Even if that is true, why does that make it a big nisayon for boaz? It's either an issur drabbanan or doraysa for him to sleep with her. Why would he be tempted? He also happened to be an old man. If a woman came up to you and made it clear that she wants to sleep with you would you be tempted? Would that be a tremendous nisayon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:42:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:42:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] samael Message-ID: not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger of doing so? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:26:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:26:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] samael In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589BAA.7090905@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 03:42 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have > never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger > of doing so? One is not supposed to pronounce the name of *any* angel that isn't also a human name. As far as I know this is a universally-accepted rule. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 14:55:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:55:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608215544.GA2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:13:32AM +0000, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: : RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she : wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, : and never will be Chayav... I am wondering if the chiyuv of chinukh to follow minhagim may be more binding than any minhag itself. If she is counting because that's what women in her eidah do, poerhaps her post-bat mitzvah chiyuv is *less*. : To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here : regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman : geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, : Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh : haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a.] a : woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is : a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives : heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant : berakhot... And because "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" is a statement about HQBH commanding the tzibur, so there is no sheqer inan einah metzuvah ve'osah saying "vetzivanu". For that matter, how does making a berakhah on a mitzvah performed for chinukh work? And returning to the case of an edah where women are nohagos to count the omer, an Ashkenaziah would make a berakhah on a minhag too. On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote: : If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a : bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah : (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able : to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her : chiyuv-level not having changed. If in all cases, she is making a berakhah on the tzibur's command, and perhaps the over la'asiyasah is what triggers why say the berakhah now rather than some other time. I think the list of sources RAF provides speak more to what constitutes a trigger for saying the berakhah than what the berakhah is on. And lemaaseh, chinukh, minhag and einah metzuvah ve'osah are each sufficient for Ashkenazios. : ... [R Asher Weis] then explains as : follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action : (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the : result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to : achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting : avodat Hashem... Sounds like a sibling to the Brisker gavra vs cheftzah. Whether the gavra has to do the pe'ulah, or the tzotza'ah must take effect onthew cheftzah ... : My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a : mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the : mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a : maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is : definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan : counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira : (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) ... Yeah, but it's not only the child counting, it's the child's mind which knows the count. Kind of like the non-Jew made the maaqah, but on his own home! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:25:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:25:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the : government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not : knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. Many accuse the AhS of writing things that would to appeal to the govt censor. But not to distort the din, only in cases where he thought the readership would realize he was obviously doing so. Which means that the AhS can't be used as a ra'ayah, because those who disagree will simply say he *obviously* couldn't have meant it. But the idea that communal policy halakhah should follow the NIH (or your country's equivalent) recommendations because the alternative is chaos appears compelling. Assuming the poseiq things the gov't is being honest. : In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael : Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to : listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees : and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita... Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on their audience. Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently includes conflicting laws. : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo sasur cannot apply. Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 : R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to : explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim : d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do : the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that : whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we : keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. : : This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I : referenced who explains the Ramabam.... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 min. in). As is my norm, I add bits here and there. ... But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, neither to the left nor to the right"? 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between Torah and rabbinic law. 2- [My own addition] R' Shimon Shkop allows us to say the same thing, 180deg off. In Shaarei Yosher, he asks the question of why a sefeiq sefeiqah (a doubt added upon a second doubt) is ruled leniently. The Rashba (Shu"t 1:401) holds it's a variant on the notion of relying on majority... Rav Shimon explains sefeiq sefeiqa on other grounds, following the Rambam. Who said that a doubt in Torah law must be ruled stringently? It wasn't the Torah, it is rabbinic! ... So, rather than the Ramban's limiting the specific prohibition to only cases where we are certain about the realia, it's possible that we could limit the rabbinic enactment of ruling stringently on Torah law to have only been made about the other 612 laws. With the same consequent rationale. 3- Rav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (Meshekh Chokhmah, Devarim 17:11): A Torahitic prohibition describes something that is inherently wrong. The universe is made such that combining meat and milk is a problem (metu'af, meshuqatz). A rabbinic prohibition lacks that reality. Chicken and milk isn't inherently damaging, it is that it leads to error through habit or accident. Therefore, one needn't the same care when dealing with rabbinic extension as when dealing with the damaging or refining thing itself. 4- Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Qunterus Divrei Soferim): Of course there is a reality to rabbinic statements. It is all revealed from the Creator, all the Ratzon Hashem yisbarakh (the Will of the Creator, blessed be He). The difference between a derabbanan and a de'oraisa is the explicitness. Therefore it is less sacred, and violation involves lesser realities. A difference of quantity, not quality. Rabbi Rakeffet links Rav Elchanan's position to his belief in da'as Torah; both imply a belief that there is revelation of Hashem's Will today through the rabbis. 5- Shulchan Arukh haRav [another addition not in the lecture]: In a rare case of where the Shulchan Arukh haRav discusses the purpose of a law rather than just codifying practice, he discusses the significance of yom tov sheini shel galiyos, the observance of a second day of Yom Tov outside of Israel. He explains that there is no time in the heavenly realms. The supernal "Pesach" is not associated with any particular time. Hashem made a connection between that Pesach and the 15th of Nissan, giving us a worldly manifestation within time. The SAhR continues that the 16th of Nissan is connected to the very same supernal Pesach. The seder on the 2nd night is a manifestation of the same metaphysical reality. What differs is who draws down the connection, not what it is we are connected to. Perhaps this is generalizable to rabbinic legislation in general. This would result in an opinion similar to Rav Elchanan's in that it gives a reality to rabbinic law, rather than their just being pragmatics for how to keep Torah law. However, the opinions are also quite different in that it makes the rabbinic legislator a metaphysical engineer, building the reality, rather than a conduit of Hashem's revelation of that reality. And, to continue R' Rakeffet's thought, Chassidic attachment to the Tzaddiq is not the same as the Yeshiva World's notion da'as Torah. 6- Seifer Me'iras Einayim (SM"A, Ch"M 67, #2): The berakhah that Hashem gives to those who keep shemittah , that they will have sufficient crops in the 6th year for the 6th, 7th and 8th years, is only when shemittah is mandatory by Torah law. (I.e. when the majority of the tribes are in their lands, and therefore there is a yoveil every 50th year.) Today, someone who keeps rabbinic shemittah gets no such guarantees. 7- Chazon Ish (Deshevi'is 18, #4): The blessing did apply during the 2nd Temple and after its destruction, for the heavenly court fulfills based on what's decreed down below. Rabbi Rakeffet identifies the SMA with the position of the Meshekh Chokhmah, and the Chazon Ish with R' Elchanan Wassermnn's. To my mind, it's possible that his position is more like the Shulchan Arukh haRav. However, this explains why the Chazon Ish was so willing to be stringent when it came to keeping shemittah. Had he felt that the observance didn't come with insurance from the A-lmighty, perhaps he would have ruled leniently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:31:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589CB8.8080308@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 04:01 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > in this documentary > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is > claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few > babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work > in the long run. That only makes sense for women who are planning a particular size of family, and use birth control the rest of the time. I don't see how it could possibly work for women who never use birth control, and whose "plan" is to have as many children as Hashem sends. How could having more than one at a time reduce the total number of pregnancies? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 16:18:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:18:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160608231854.GC16414@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:40:42PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? : : "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. : For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* : anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". Which is why it's intransitive. I included the "Li" in my quote because the prepositional phrase was part of my point. "Lekhahein" is not the verb of being a kohein or being made a kohein, but doing a kohein's job. Also, Yeshaiah 61:10, "kechasan yekhahein pe'eir". Even any case, I found this in the Seforno on the pasuq: And with this you will be a segulah from among them [referring to "vehyisem li segulah" in the previous pasuq]. Because you will be a "mamlekhes kohanim" to understand and teach to the entire human species that all will call in Hashem's name and to serve Him "with one shoulder"... Which not only makes my diqduq point, he clealy speaks of a duty to actively instruct the world -- ROS writes "lehoros lekhol hamin ha'enoshi". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:23:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:23:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: R' Zev Zero wrote: > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand experiences with the job, too. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:50:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:50:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Authorial Programs Message-ID: I've been leading a chaburah studying the Minchat Chinuch. It's quite interesting trying to figure out why he dives into some topics in detail and others he says would be too long, or this isn't the place to discuss detail or he's "not holding" in it right now. Makes me wonder how many mechabrim have a conscious, programmatic approach versus a subconscious approach or no unifying theme. Anyone aware of any analysis? 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 Wed Jun 8 22:30:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:30:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* > a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" > on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) > The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only an asmachta. > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not > : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be > what > : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara > that > : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. > If > : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... > > His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This > would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on > their audience. > > Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently > includes conflicting laws. > That is not the Meshech Chochmas point. His point is that we as human beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the action. > : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why > : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the > : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, > : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast > : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the > : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. > > This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs > to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo > sasur cannot apply. > This is not the Ran it is the meshech chochma explaining the Rambam > Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq > de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. > ... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps > shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore > came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. > > > R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of > Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 > min. in). As is my norm, > I add bits here and there. > ... > But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic > law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, > neither to the left nor to the right"? > > 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made > the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the > case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between > Torah and rabbinic law. > This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the opinion of the Ran. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 22:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:34:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger nisayon then Yosef faced? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:22:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" is only d'rabanan. In other words, if one has a legitimate safek about whether he did a d'Oraisa, then it is a smart idea and/or a rabbinic obligation to resolve that safek, but he is not required by the Torah to do so. I don't know if the above is correct, but if it is then it could be very relevant to the current discussion. For example, a safek d'rabanan might be a sort of "sfeik sfeika", and therefore go l'kula. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 07:31:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:31:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cholov Stam Outside of the US Message-ID: <1465482641540.74929@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/hezpyyn Q: I am planning a vacation to some foreign countries, and I assume that since I drink cholov stam, I can drink the milk in the countries I visit. I wanted to double-check with you, just in case. (A consumer's question) A: It's a good thing that you contacted us! The heter of cholov stam, which was explained in the previous installment of Halcha Yomis, only pertains to countries which have adequate dairy regulations. The OU's poskim have ruled that European Union nations and other countries with well-enforced dairy regulations qualify for the heter of cholov stam. In countries where such regulations are lacking or are poorly enforced, milk remains prohibited as cholov akum and requires on-site kashrus supervision in order to be permissible. To inquire about a specific destination please contact the OU via kosherq at ou.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:43:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AAB7.5050807@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 09:22 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" > is only d'rabanan. See Shev Shmaatsa at great length on this question. I don't remember his conclusion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 09:24:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:24:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160609162401.GB31542@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowlderized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Second, being gadol hador just makes it worse. Kol hagadol mechaveiro yitzro gadol heimenu. (An idea with way too much evidence in support in the newspapers. Not the drequency of the stories, it's still man-bites-dog. But the things religious people and other role models are caught doing that most of us aren't tempted to do....) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AA0E.60404@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 05:23 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Zero wrote: > > > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. > > I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. > > Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. > "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" > > Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand > experiences with the job, too. It was expected that all of Shevet Levi would devote themselves to learning, since they had nothing else to do, and since they got in that position in the first place mostly by dint of having already been the Torah-learning class in Mitzrayim (which role they got simply by staying in the beis medrash when everyone else ran out to do their civic duty) it was natural that they would continue. Thus it was expected that they would be prominent in the Sanhedrin ("uvasa el hacohanim haleviyim") and "yoru mishpatecha leyaacov". But there was no requirement on any individual Cohen or Levi to do so; they were given land for farming around each of their cities, and by the late 2nd bayis it appears that most cohanim, or at least a large proportion of them, were amei ha'aretz, and this did not make them less Cohanim. From this I conclude that Torah is not part of the job, but rather something to do when you're *not* on the job. The actual job of kehuna was a well-paid sinecure that Hashem gave them so they would have the time to do this other thing on their own, much as one is supposed to let a Talmid Chacham sell his goods first in the market, so he can get out of there and back to his "hobby". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:08:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:08:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Message-ID: <000001d1c250$098a3600$1c9ea200$@actcom.net.il> Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. She was not a stranger accosting him on the street, she was not a work colleague (with whom there are certain professional boundaries) nor was she the girl at the checkout counter. (Platonic relationships had not been invented yet-yes, I'm being sarcastic. There is probably no such thing as a truly platonic relationship between a straight man and a straight woman, which is why we are enjoined to be tznu'im. En apotropus le'arayot, remember?) His own wife had died a couple of months before (at the start of the barley harvest) which probably meant he was lonely and certainly meant that involvement with Rut would not have been an emotional betrayal of his wife. It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. It was highly unlikely that anyone would have known about a one-time liaison between them, so there would have been no hillul haShem, and Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 07:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:30:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, Some want to distinguish between different types of safek 1) safek in the :metziut" 2) safek in the din 3) machloket poskim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 10:25:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:25:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] temimos re: last day of shavuos Message-ID: <20160610172550.NHHT21830.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> I was doing some learning with a Kollel guy in a chabura about s'firas ha'omer, and I asked RSM's famous question, pitting "tosafos yom tov" vs the minhag that the Taz mentions of waiting until the end of the 49th day to count because of "temimos." The Rav thought it was a great question, and he took it back to his Rosh HaKollel, who, among other things asked: if this is such a good kashya, why does nobody even bring it up for 200 years after the Taz? Quite "coincidentally", he ran into a 32-page packet, just produced by BMG in Lakewood, that is on this very question. So, for your interest and/or Shavous study, see , or https://www.dropbox.com/s/ig0jxw2ye3xlpjy/%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99.pdf?dl=0 (you can download it) Good shabbos and a gutten yuntiff! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 13:36:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160610203636.GA30587@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:30:15PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the : Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, .... This was discussed earlier on this thread, right before RAM's question: Me: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#03 the other RMB: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#08 :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 03:24:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:24:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20160614102429.GA26569@aishdas.org> I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that post-modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever know to be objectively true. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs... I think post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. However, I can know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. So, the folk there pointed me to Rav Shagar (Rav Shimon Gershon Rosenberg), a DL postmodern baal machashavah. Along the way, someone mentioned R/Dr Alan Brill's blog post of notes he made to himself teaching R Shagar's works. or . To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true to Ayin. Given their advice, and the hopes that I could find common language with the post-modern among my own children, I spent part of the "3 day yom tov" with R' Shagar. Given my opening rejection in post-modernism, as well as a couple of comments made by Dr Brill, I must admit I may not have been fair. Perhaps one of his fans is lurking on list and wants to clear up wht I misunderstood. As R/Dr Brill put it "The very question" in the prior sentence, not quoted, "shows that Shagar is treating postmodernism as an ism to adopt rather than the current condition of our lives like the prior existential-psychological era that we did not choice but were embedded within." R Shagar builds a case for the condition of believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. An inability to believe that something is objectively true into the belief in of an objective Ayin. Help? 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 Tue Jun 14 14:10:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:10:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 16:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:00:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <598c06.3f27511.4491e6a3@aol.com> [1] From: Micha Berger via Avodah Subject: Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? [--R' Marty Bluke] I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowdlerized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org [2] From: Simi Peters via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. .... It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. ....Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters [3] From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah Subject: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth >>I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her?<<[--R' Marty Bluke] As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. .... So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love...lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana >>>>> [1] Over the years I too have wondered about the use of the word "margalosav" instead of "raglosav" and came to a similar conclusion to RMB's, that is, since "margolios" are pearls, the pasuk might be talking about the family jewels. However I did not assume that Rus /actually/ uncovered Boaz in that way but rather, that uncovering his feet was a way to hint to him that he should uncover something else -- not that night, but in due course. That he should act as her goel, that he should marry her and have children with her. [2] Yes, Boaz liked her and admired her but when Chazal say that the evening was a great nisayon for him they are clearly saying that on that night, he was attracted to her and had the desire and opportunity to sin. The nisayon was much more than "he didn't want to hurt her feelings." And she wasn't so "lonely and socially isolated"-- she could easily have married a much younger man, as Boaz says when he speaks of her great chessed in approaching him instead of going after the bachurim. [3] The idea that he was "deeply in love with her" is a stretch but yes, he clearly had feelings for her. Until that night I would say his feelings were mainly protective and paternal -- he always called her "biti, my daughter" -- but that night, under those circumstances, a yetzer hara was aroused that does not seem to have been there before. After all, months had passed and he had not suggested marriage, which was the very reason Naomi resorted to such an unconventional strategy. [4] I want to add one more point, which is that not all old men are the same. R' MBluke started this thread by asking why this should be such a nisayon when Boaz was "the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man." That the Gadol Hador could be overtaken by illicit desires we already know from many previous incidents involving Yehuda, Shimshon, Dovid Hamelech and others. As for old men, many lose desire as well as the ability to act on their desires, but we know that this was not the case with Boaz from the very fact that he did indeed father a child with Rus. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 15:49:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:30:47AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* :> a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" :> on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) : The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo : tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only : an asmachta. And later: :> 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made :> the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the :> case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between :> Torah and rabbinic law. : This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and : then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the : opinion of the Ran. What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling you why the pasuq "lo sasur" is not an azahara, and not a complete denial that the power to make a derabanan is from the Torah. As the Ramban puts it, shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on the pasuq. Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: :>: R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating :>: explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not :>: necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what :>: Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that :>: a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If :>: every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... ... : His point is that we as human : beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when : making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the : act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to : their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the : action. I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects their legislation. Or, ein hatzibur yalhol la'amod bam, which is the category all the MC's examples demonstrate. In either case, he talks about the difference between a deOraisa, where one might ch"v eat chazir because of a safeiq and a derabbanan where, as you put it "the value is in listening to their words". It is from that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. 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 Tue Jun 14 16:24:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:24:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160614232420.GB5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:23am CEST, R Arie Folger quoted Yechezqeil ben Buzi haKohein (44:23): : Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. : "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and : profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" RAYK (MiDevar Shor 16) writes that this is why we're called "beni bekhori Yisrael". The kehunah of the bekhor, to serve as either shaliach haMaqom to the family, or their shaliach before Him. See or . Also see Mal'akhei 2:7, for a similar definition of kehunah (WRT benei Aharon): Ki sifsei khohein yishmeru da'as veSorah yebaqshu mipihu.... RAYK's point is much like the LR's words when launchind the Noachide campaign: A particular task [is] to educate and to encourage the observance of the Seven Laws among all people. The religious tolerance of today, and the trend towards greater freedom, gives us the unique opportunity to enhance widespread observance of these laws. For it is by adherence to these laws, which are in and of themselves an expression of Divine goodness, that all humankind is united and bound by a common moral responsibility to our Creator. This unity promotes peace and harmony among all people, thereby achieving the ultimate good. As the Psalmist said: "How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 04:39:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:39:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon wrote: > So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was > deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it > only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his > wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world > to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at > his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 05:25:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:25:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I agree that "deeply in love" is probably be too much - but I think it is quite plausible that he was falling in love with her, whether he realized it before that night or not. It certainly makes it much easier to understand the nisayon if that is the case. And even if romantic love is much more emphasized in our time and culture than many others, I find it unlikely that it did not exist at all in Biblical times. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 13:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:44:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> I said that ?Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her.? This is not a claim that he was ?in love with her? (nusah 21st century) and is not the projection of a Western conception of Romantic love (nusah 14th century). Men and women have always been attracted to each other and loved each other which has, b?H, ensured the survival of the human race. Yitzhak avinu is described as loving Rivka imenu (after marriage); Yaakov avinu is described as loving Rahel imenu and Mikhal bat Shaul is described as loving David (in both cases before marriage. What is being described is an emotion, not an action.) And while Shir haShirim is allegorical, the allegory describes a profound, intense and sensual love. Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. Hazal do not find strange the idea that an old man might have sexual feeling and reactions. (Consider their description of David and Avishag in the presence of Batsheva.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From: Marty Bluke [mailto:marty.bluke at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:40 PM To: Ilana Elzufon Cc: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group ; Simi Peters Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon > wrote: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 23:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:39:55PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us : projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a : situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". When it comes to Yaaqov and Rachel, we find even more explicit description of a couple who who romantically in love. "Vaya'avod Yaaqov beRacheil 7 shanim, vayihyu be'einav kayamim achachdim be'ahavaso osahh". I think that academic claims of how much the human condition has changed over the millennia need to be checked against our belief that while TSBP evolves over time, halakhah does its redemptive work for generation after generation. Yes, many things have changed. The industrialist who relates to time with the linear instruments of a clock and day planner experiences something very different than the farmer's cycles of day and night and of annual seasons. Both of which are very different than the post-telecom experience of time which is dominated by events to respond to (phone, email, text/IM), more so than a preplanned schedule. But far more stays the same than would make for good PhD theses. 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 Jun 15 23:38:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:38:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. A ra'ayah for the Ramban is Yevamos 61a, which says that zenus (eg WRT marrying a kohein) is relations between two people who are not allowed to marry. Not all two people who aren't actually married. The Rambam (lav 355) cites the Sifra, Qedoshim 77. However, the Sifra inside distinguishes between being mechalel one's daughter lesheim zenus vs not lesheim zenus. So I don't get it. 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 Thu Jun 16 01:36:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:36:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They > try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak > metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". Truthfully, I never understood that whole story. Avraham was very well known generally and certainly by Avimelech and it was common knowledge that Avraham had a "miracle" son at the age of 100 but no daughters. How could this ruse have possible worked? Additionally, how could Yitzchak and Rivka have been meshamesh bayom where someone could see them? In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came after he married her and brought her into his tent. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Simi Peters wrote: > Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud > with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not > have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: >: The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >: any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >: malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. Even the Ramban who says that there is no technical issur d'oraysa, would probably declare this kind of behaviour is naval birshus hatorah and certainly not what the Gadol Hador should be doing. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 05:47:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:47:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gemara narrative Message-ID: <23bc4e6f392f4404bbfbd7d994e281a8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you are learning gemara and you come to a give and take where the hava amina seems strange (e.g. maakot 14a where the gemaras first assumes the rabbanan learn a din from lchaleik yatzah and ask where does R' Yitzchak learn it from. Gemara answers from a different pasuk and then asks why don't the rabbanan learn it from there. the answer is ein haci nami?! -- so why record the whole misattribution of reason, and how did they know/not know) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 01:47:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:47:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling > Ramban puts it, > shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah > aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma > lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav > As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power > to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on > the pasuq. > Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that > following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu > bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With your formulation that question still arises. > Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: ... >: His point is that we as human >: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when >: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the >: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to >: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the >: action. > I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el > Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects > their legislation. If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 08:10:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:10:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616151039.GF25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:47:01AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: :> As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power :> to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on :> the pasuq. :> Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that :> following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu :> bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. : The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on : lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With : your formulation that question still arises. With a mitzvah de'oraisa, oso lav is deOraisa. We do not cook meat with milk because of a derashah from a pasuq that is specifically about oso lav -- basar bechalav. With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav. (Earlier version had "bachaleiv imo", but mentioning bird milk seems too silly even for an imaginary pasuq.) I find the question cleanly -- and to my thinking, intuitively -- avoided. AISI, my read of the Ramban is an intuitive take on the chiluq. :> Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: : ... :>: His point is that we as human :>: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when :>: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the :>: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to :>: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the :>: action. :> I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el :> Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects :> their legislation. : If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. As I said, cart-and-horse. The causality is that the rejection is being offered "in response" (kevayakhol) to the law. Not that the law is to be rejected because they failed to respond to His Will. Yes, whether A causes B or B causes A, you still end up with both. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:07:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:07:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, : the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came : after he married her and brought her into his tent. I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" in differing ways. 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 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:12:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:12:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> What are the pragmatic reasons? In particular what happens when the reason for the derabbanan no longer exists. Is there a difference on the origin of the derabbanan? One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:58:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:58:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:12:28PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos :> as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans :> which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. : What are the pragmatic reasons? Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. OTOH, a gezeirah is pragmatic -- nothing happenms to you for vioolating it. The whole thing is a means of preventing ending up committing a real sin. Is there power to lighting a menorah of Chanukah, or did Chazal just have to pick /something/ to standardize how people fulfil the general deOraisa of commemorating a neis? Second day yom tov nowadays, does it connect to some supernal koakh, as the SA haRav says? Or is it a way to keep alive memory that the calendar ought to be al pi re'iyah? : In particular what happens when the reason : for the derabbanan no longer exists. The fact that the consumer is totally disconnected from shechitah and kashering nowadays might have rendered the gezeira of owf bechalav superfluous. People have little reason to confuse the rules of one with the other. But even if it's true that the reason stated in the gemara no longer exists, would anyone would say it is therefore no longer in force? Even though the motive is pragmatic., Is this baserd on the idea that we have to be chosheshim for unstated reasons and those may not be pragmatic? What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:10:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:10:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did sleep together. I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. Ben ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah > : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get > : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:07:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:07:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> On 06/16/2016 03:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >> : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >> : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. >> >> Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. > In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did > sleep together.I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they did more than that. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:18:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. > > One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual > damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of > that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or > psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite > taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. > If one assumes that the only problem is rebellion like the netivot then milk in poultry has no spiritual damage (the problem is gavra not cheftza) > > > : In particular what happens when the > reason > : for the derabbanan no longer exists. > > What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out > any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all > to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. > Not all takanot are to protect a deoraita. In any case the original question was why we are obligated by these takanot > > : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic > : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists > > Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention > anyway. > Not all kinyanim. More importantly not every monrtary takanah in shas has to do with kinyanim. There are loads of takanot for the good of commerce. In the change from an agragrian society to a business society to a high tech society much is no longer relevant -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 01:00:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:00:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:08 PM > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, >: the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came >: after he married her and brought her into his tent. > I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. > In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in > love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in > particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" > in differing ways. Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman (40 years old, according to Hazal). Rut is a lonely woman. She knows that she is a social pariah, looked upon with suspicion as a Moabite and not likely to bask in the social glow of Naomi's connections because Naomi abandoned them all during the famine and has very little social capital herself. This is why she tells Naomi that she will go gleaning where they will let her--she's expecting to be thrown out of some places. This is also part of the reason Boaz tells her to stay in his field--he knows the social climate of his town. And Naomi is extremely surprised that Rut has come back with so much grain; it means that someone has helped her--not something Naomi expected under the circumstances. Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). The halakha was still in dispute well into the lifetime of David (Yevamot). Tov (aka Ploni Almoni) is practically in a panic when he refuses the marriage to Rut--he wants the field, but no strings attached "pen ash'hit et nahalati." Only Boaz has the guts to champion Rut's cause because he has the authority to do so, has the social clout to do so, he cares about her, and he is touched by her trust in him and her courage in coming to speak to him at the goren. Rut's acceptance into society only comes with her marriage to Boaz and Naomi's rehabilitation with her neighbors only comes with the birth of Oved. [Email #2 -micha] I believe that 'margelotav' is like 'merashotav' (Bereshit 28:11). The 'mem' is not part of the shoresh and I don't think it is a pun. It may be an oblique reference to halitza and, by extension, to yibum, a delicate way of indicating that, while what Naomi wants for Rut is not technically yibum, it is the yibum-like 'hakamat shem be'nahala'. See the perush of the Malbim on the mitzvah of yibum, where he compares the mitzvah to the yibum-like story of Yehuda and Tamar on the one hand, and Rut and Boaz on the other. When a man says to a woman, "You could marry anybody. Why have you picked me?" that is a compliment, not necessarily a statement of fact. Part of what impresses Boaz about what Rut has done is that she is willing to marry an old man when that goes against the nature of things. As Hazal say on this pasuk, a woman would prefer to marry a young, poor man rather than an old, rich man (gold diggers aside). Rut has set aside her natural inclinations in order to do hesed for her mother-in-law. The words may also be read as an expression of Boaz's sense of gratitude and wonder in finding his one-in-a- million woman (and Rut is indeed exceptional) especially at a time in his life when he did not expect to marry again. When Boaz encounters Rut he has just gotten up from shiva for his wife. Either way, Boaz is not commenting on Rut's bountiful marriage prospects, which are pretty much non-existent (as I argued in the previous post.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 05:18:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:18:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: RnSP: Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as > the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her > mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite > and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because > it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly > idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). > Does Boaz's idealism extend to not quite grasping how different his attitude towards Rut is from everyone else's? His response when she comes to the goren seems to indicate that he had assumed she had many marriage options from among the younger men. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:04:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:04:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> Message-ID: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. Ben On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > > It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same > bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they > did > more than that. > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:57:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> On 06/17/2016 09:04 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Ben > > On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> >> It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same >> bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they >> did more than that. > Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira > it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? Yes, exactly. > That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. No, it doesn't. It has no connection whatsoever to that machlokes, and I'm astonished that you see a connection. *Everyone* agrees that there is no issur mid'oraisa on a man and woman sharing a bed, even if she's *definitely* a niddah, let alone if it's only a possibility. Everyone agrees that nowadays it's assur mid'rabanan, even if she's only possibly a niddah. Everyone also agrees that nowadays there's an issur yichud even if she's definitely *not* a niddah. None of this has any connection to the machlokes about what level of issur is involved in an unmarried couple having sex. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 07:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 17 11:03:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! Message-ID: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise thought of on our own. He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: 1. A town has a single shochet. A younger shochet wants to move in to town with the latest "shochet" technology -- whatever that is. The point is that he thinks he can provide his services more efficiently and at less cost to the community. In this case, the gemara tells us (al pi this rav-writer) that the beis din of the town can decide that the town can't support the competition, and weigh the fact that the older shochet might be put out of business, etc. I.e., the beis din has a lot of room to enforce a non-competitive monopoly here. 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- competition that might provide a better product is more important than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. The point that this writer was making, again, is that this distinction is not something we might have thought on our own. I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 12:47:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 22:47:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of the wheat harvest.) So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters -----Original Message----- From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 5:13 PM To: Rn Simi Peters ; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Marty Bluke ; Rn Toby Katz Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 14:01:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:01:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> Message-ID: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same >> gezira. > > Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:39:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I'm wondering if you considered the possibility that "lo bashamayim hee" might teach us that their legislation IS His will, by definition. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 14:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:35:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom _______________________________________________ It's complex! Enjoy http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:23:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allen Gerstl via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 70 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 R' Sholom Simon wrote: > 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a > teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks > he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage > competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out > of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- > competition that might provide a better product is more important > than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. . . . > > I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they > all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! > > I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this > idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Please see http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html The above issue is discussed at about footnote 22 (about three quarters of the way down in the article) and the Gemorah cited is Baba Batra 21b-22a I recall a similar question coming before the late Rav Gedaliah Felder, the posek of Toronto and that he told a group of us participating in a shiur that he gave. He had ruled as above. KT Eliyahu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:17:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:17:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> On 06/18/2016 05:01 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >>> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. >> >> Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > > That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping > in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate > any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion > about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Sorry, you're contradicting the very Taz you're invoking. He says *explicitly* that the issue he's discussing is being in the same bed, not anything else. Because as we all know it's forbidden for a man to be in the same bed as a niddah, even if they don't touch each other. And *that* is the question the Taz asks about Boaz and Ruth. If she was a niddah then how could they be in the same bed? And he answers that the gezera had not yet been made, so she wasn't a niddah. The same answer explains how Yehuda and Tamar could have sex; the gezera that would make her a niddah hadn't yet been enacted. The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything more into it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:03:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:03:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I believe it's a Chazon Ish. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > thought of on our own. > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:45:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: <20160619034555.GA2854@aishdas.org> Anyone interested in our perrennial about minhag avos and minhag hamaqom would likely be interested in R' David Brofsky's Teasers: ... Individual Customs The Torah teaches that in addition to the obligations and prohibitions imposed by the Torah, an individual has the ability to create personal obligations (Vayikra 5:4) or prohibitions (Bemidbar 30:3), known as nedarim and shevuot ... Family Customs As we shall see below, the Talmud teaches that one is also obligated to observe the customs of one's locality (minhag ha-makom), even if one leaves the place, until permanently relocating in another place. In addition to observing the custom of one's "place," is there a halakhically binding category of minhag avot, according to which one would be obligated to follow the customs of one's family? ... Local or Communal Customs As mentioned above, the Talmud (Pesachim 50a) teaches that one is obligated to observe the "minhag ha-makom", local custom. This obligation, as we shall see, is incumbent upon the residents of that place. Where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Passover until midday one may do [work]; where it is the custom not to do [work], one may not do [work]. ... Minhag and Pesak Halakhah In addition to being bound by local extra-halakhic customs, the Talmud teaches that if it is customary in a certain place to follow a specific halakhic view, that halakhic opinion becomes binding. For example, the Gemara[39] relates: ... Gut Voch! -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 Sun Jun 19 03:33:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:33:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and other differences between biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. <> what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to protect deoraisa laws. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 02:25:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 12:25:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> References: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:27 AM, wrote: > > > In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field > until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three > months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer > until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..* > That raises a whole other set of questions, namely when and how was Rus misgayer? Rashi at the beginning of the Megila claims that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women and Rus was only megayer later. Others claim that it can't be that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women so it must be that they were megayer them. The Bach for example states that Rus was megayer to marry at the beginning and then later was megayer a second time lshem shamayim. R' Shternbuch in Moadim Uzmanim claims that they were minors and therefore when they came of age could be moche and therefore Rus was megayer a second time (ayen sham). Therefore it is pretty difficult to tie the 3 months into the geirus. In any case the din of waiting 3 months is a din drabbanan of havchana, that you should be able to tell the difference between a child conceived as a non-Jew versus a child conceived as a Jew. For all we know this din drabbanan had not yet been formulated in the days of Boaz and therefore is irrelevant. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 21:27:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:27:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> In a message dated 6/18/2016 3:48:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, familyp2 at actcom.net.il writes: So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters >>>> In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:16:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:16:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160619121630.GC24863@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:47:45PM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley : harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they : won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end : of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of : the wheat harvest.) ... I thought "ad kelos se'ir hase'orim uqetzir hachitim" referred to the end of the overlap time. Which is how I got such a tight estimate. You appear to be reading it "until the end of the barley harvest, [and then beyond, until] the end of the wheat harvest." Which, despite needing the bracketed insertion, is quite plausible. But not the assumption I had been working with. In any case, even in a matter of months, we would still be talking about romantic love. To my mind, any couple in love before the love that that grows out of building a life together are experiencing romantic love. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:27:47AM -0400, RnTK wrote: : In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field : until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months : because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she : can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) The harvest season isn't three months, even according to RnSP's understanding of the pasuq. And that taqanah derabbanan almost certainly didn't exist yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160619120740.GB24863@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 01:33:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to :> obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH :> said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav : : The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and : other differences between : biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and : milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. At this point our topic is broader than that. We are back one step at whether lo sasur is a derashah or an asmachta. Yes, if every derabbanan is "lo sasur", then we need to ask about safeiq derabbanan lequlah. But if not, what is the source of their authority-- REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" Which then raised the question of whether following chakhamim actually is living according to the design of the world, as REW holds, or :> What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out :> any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all :> to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to : protect deoraisa laws. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. 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 Sun Jun 19 05:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:37:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:21:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> Message-ID: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing before marrying a woman. When people get married, they don't just sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Ben On 6/19/2016 5:17 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth > did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything > more into it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: < What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. > I am not claiming anything metaphysical. It just seems to me that not all rabbinical decrees are to help a deoraisa. I am certainly not baki enough to go through every rabbinical law but certainly some others include eruvin, most importantly almost all berachot, davening (certainly according to those that disagree with Rambam), shevat brachot. As I said before there are loads of decrees in monetary matters that are not just nezikin including prozbul, takanat hashuk, bar metzra. Again I would have to review the 3 Babas to come up with a more detailed list. Even in hilchot shabbat/yomtov we have candle lighting and other aspects of oneg, much of the seder, -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 21:15:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> <576766B2.50408@sero.name> Message-ID: <57676DE5.2000701@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 11:44 PM, I wrote: > On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the >> halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing >> before marrying a woman. > > There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. I just realised my meaning may not have been completely plain. What I meant by this is that they can have a chuppas niddah. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 20:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the > halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing > before marrying a woman. There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. The halacha in question is that when a woman agrees to get married she is presumed to have become a niddah, and must therefore count 7 days like any niddah. (Note that it's not the proposal that triggers this, nor is it her verbal acceptance, but her internal decision to accept it.) The Taz quotes the Maggid Mishneh that this is midrabanan, and says that this explains two problems we would have if it were mid'oraisa. One is Yehuda and Tamar: *not* how they could have sex, but how she could have told him that she was tehora, when by definition she has just become temeiah. The second was Boaz and Ruth: how they could have slept in the same bed. He says this *explicitly* so I don't understand how anyone can possibly misunderstand it. > When people get married, they don't just > sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and > finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Again, you are contradicting the very Taz you are quoting. He says in so many words that the problem we would have with Boaz and Ruth, if this halacha were mid'oraisa, is that she entered his bed. How can you claim that's not his concern, when he says it is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 11:42:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160620184259.GC12092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:37:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" : which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa I think quite the reverse. His saying that we follow the rabbis because not heading their advice would be stupid does not actually make the derabbanan mandatory. And I still think the Ramban is saying that the power of chazal to legislate is from lo sasur, but that does not elevate the product of their legislation to deOraisa. Thus his repeated reference to "zeh halav" in distinction to "'lo sasur' keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah". This makes a strong contrast to R' Mesamyah's position, "sheyeish bikhlal lav de-'lo sasur' kol mah shhu midivrei chakhamim..." One might employ parallel logic to REW's shitah, if it proves necessary. Remember that the Ramban's central problem isn't the same as the one which led us to this discussion. He is defending the idea that "lo sasur" is one of the 613, but (unlike the Behag) the particular mitzvos derabbanan are not each counted among them. Safeiq derabbanan lequlah is tangential to his main point, and more noted than explained. Also, I repeatedly contrasted the Meshekh Chokhmah's position (Devarim 17:11), that mitzvos derabbanan are "pragmatic", meaning the iqar is obedience, as opposed to conforming to Retzon Hashem, which I characterized as having metaphysical effect - or avoiding negtive effects. And since they're about obedience, borderline cases like safeiq derabbanan which are not rebellious can be meiqil, we do not have to worry about spiritual damage. If the mitzvah had inherent value aside from obedience, safeiq derabbanan lequlah would be a license to play Russian Roullete. I realized Retzon Hashem could also be framed less mystically in terms of desired ethics / relationship with Him, whether an asei to foster them or a lav to avoid flaws (a more rationalistic take on spiritual damage that is probably describing the same thing). Values and virtues. And in this formulation, there is no clear line between laws that Chazal would set up to implement a general deOraisa din (eg pirsumei nisa and ner Chanukah) and laws that implement His values. The broader mitzvos get kind of mussar-y / valu-ish. Like ve'asisa hayashar vehatov. On a related topic, 20 agurot from AhS Yomi. YD 201:206 (there are 218 se'ifim in the siman). There is a question whether a miqvah where most of the water is mayim she'uvim is pasul deOraisa or derabannan, or if even a miqvah that is entirely mayim she'uvim is "only" pasul miderabbanan. 3 positions: pasul deOraisa at rov, pasul deOraisa when there is entirely she'uvim, or never pasul deOraisa. The pesul derabbnan starts at 3 log is they were poured in before the 40 se'ah were complete; rov otherwise -- unless rov is deOraisa The Toras Kohanim learns the pesul of mayim she'uvim from "akh ma'yan uvor miqeih mayim" just as a maayan is made by G-d, so must the gathered water of a miqvah. But it is possible that this is an asmachta, or that it's a derashah about using actual tamei keilim but generalizing to she'uvim is asmachta, or... (See se'if 17) Now the relevant bit. In se'if 210, the AhS opines (nir'eh LAD) that because there is an asmachta, we cannot simply say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Thus ruling out the Rambam's idea that asmachtos are just mnemonic and polemic tools; he is saying they actually change the authority of the derabbanan. And if could change whether the iqar is obedience, limiting that possibility only to dinim derabbanan that have no asmachtos. IFF RYME buys into that idea at all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 08:31:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:31:48 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ie the current issue is about one who has specifically violated tora laws related to even haezer related issues. i wonder if crimes against secular governments would fall under the same type of reasoning , which as i understand , is only due to a 'bizayon hatora' . it would seem that any type of crime might fit that bill.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 12:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:45:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: , <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ------------------------------------ "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). 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 Mon Jun 20 13:57:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:57:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=24398 r reuven feinstein [around minute 35 ] responds on this tora umesora Q and A on how the haredi teacher should deal with Hallel on YH. thiswil presumably be more of a bedieved, since lechatchila schools that celebrate YH shouldn't have to rely on teachers that don't on there faculty, and increasingly may not need to.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 15:10:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:10:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> References: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160620221046.GA32539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:45:55PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is : not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). R' Shimon Shkop discusses this gemara near the end of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher. Leshitaso, there is a difference between a rebbe from whom "yevaqeish Torah mipihu" and learning from someone else, who could even be an Acher. But to my mind it is worth knowing and contemplating what our Sages said on Chagiga folio 15b. How could Rabbi Meir receive Torah from the mouth of Acheir [the former Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya, after he became a heretic]. Doesn't Rabba bar bar Chana quote R' Yochanan [in Chagiga as saying] "What does it mean when it says 'For the kohein's lips should keep knowledge; they should see Torah from his lips, for he is the angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts" (Malachi 2:7)? If the rav is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts, seek Torah from his mouth. And if not, do not seek Torah from his mouth." And the Talmud concludes, "There is no question this [Rabbi Meir studying under Acheir] is with someone great, this [the verse] is of someone of smaller stature." It is worth understanding according to this how Rabbi Yochanan spoke without elaboration, since he speaks only of the smaller statured, not the greats. One may say that we should be exacting in that Rabbi Yochanan said, "seek Torah from his mouth" and not "learn from him". For in truth, one who learns from his peer does not learn from the mouth of the person who is teaching him, but listens and weighs on the scales of his mind, and then he understands the concept. This is not learning "from the mouth of" his teacher, but from the mind of the teacher. "Torah from the mouth" is only considered accepting the concepts as he heard them, with no criticism. And it was by this idea that Rabbi Yochanan spoke about accepting Torah from the mouth [i.e. uncritically] only if the rabbi is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts. And according to this, in Rabbi Yochanan's words is hinted a distinction between who is of smaller stature and who is great. The one of smaller stature will learn Torah from the mouth, for he is unable to decide what to draw near and want to keep away. Whereas a person of great stature who has the ability to decide [critically] does not learn Torah from [someone else's] mouth. Similarly, it's appropriate to alert anyone who contemplates the books of acharonim that they should not "learn Torah from their mouths", they shouldn't make a fundamental out of everything said in their words before they explore well those words. Something similar to a reminder of this idea can be learned from what the gemara says in Bava Metzia, chapter "One Who Hires Workers" [85b]. Rabbi Chiya said, "I made it so that the Torah would not be forgotten from Israel." It explains there that he would plant linen, spread out nets [made of tat linen, thereby] hunt deer, made parchment [of their hides], and wrote [on them] chumash texts. This hints that whatever is in our power to prepare from the beginning of the Torah, it is incumbent on us to do ourselves, according to the ability that was inherited to us to explore and understand. And not to rely on the words of the gedolim who preceded us. 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 Tue Jun 21 02:57:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Potential Role of Orthodox Judaism in a "Fractured Republic" Message-ID: <20160621095708.GA20821@aishdas.org> [Rabbi] "Meir Soloveichik on Yuval Levin's 'The Fractured Republic'" or https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/meir-soloveichik-yuval-levins-fractured-republic ... Levin is undoubtedly correct about the state of American religion, both in diagnosis and prescription, and reading his book has made me more convinced that it is at this moment that American Orthodox Judaism may have found a unique calling. As Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik has pointed out, religious Jews have always sought to embody Abraham's identification of himself in the Bible as a ger vetoshav--a stranger and a neighbor, aware of what makes one different while engaging the world and, like Abraham in Canaan, speaking candidly and eloquently about why they are different. Last summer, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who is also a devout Christian, struck by how so many traditionalists feel that they now live in a culture not welcoming to them... As I argued in a recent symposium in Mosaic, the Jewish example can lead faith communities in a joint project to safeguard an America that will allow all of us to be "strangers and neighbors" --to fight for our religious freedom and distinctiveness, while also articulating a conservative vision of the American idea--and thereby illustrating how traditionalists can, in Levin's words, "live out their faiths and their ways in the world." 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 Tue Jun 21 14:13:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:13:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: <20160621211321.GA8586@aishdas.org> RGS posted a link to on Torah Musings: Jewish Action HALACHAH AND THE FALLEN RABBI: Q & A WITH RABBI HERSHEL SCHACHTER JA Mag | June 4, 2015 in Jewish Law By Avrohom Gordimer ... Jewish Action: Can one still follow the piskei halachah of a fallen rabbi? Rabbi Schachter: No. The pasuk in Navi (Malachi 2:7), as expounded by the gemara (Moed Katan 17a), says that a Torah teacher must be sinless and righteous like a malach (angel). According to the Torah, we only follow a rabbi's ruling if he properly models Torah behavior. If he is a ba'al aveirah, if he knowingly violates Biblical or rabbinic laws, he is not qualified to teach and render halachic rulings. When members of the public become aware of his improper behavior, they may no longer rely on his judgment for any rulings, unless it can be verified that such rulings were rendered before the rabbi's sinful conduct began. Since it is often not possible to ascertain when these rulings were rendered, one should ask another rabbi for a new pesak. Although people use [Marcus] Jastrow's [Aramaic] dictionary [for Talmudic and Midrashic terminology], and I was told that Jastrow was not Orthodox, that is different because that is an issue of translation, not pesak (halachic adjudication). For a pesak, a rabbi needs to consider all issues before him, and weigh and evaluate them. It is very different than mere translation. To issue halachic rulings, one must be part of the chachmei haMesorah (Torah scholars who follow the Torah's traditions). A rabbi who sins, especially if he commits a crime, is certainly not in this category. JA: What does one do with the sefarim written by such a rabbi? RS: They should not be used. Since his sefarim include his ideas and rulings, they fit into the prohibition against studying Torah from someone who is unfit due to his improper behavior. Any time someone writes a sefer, he fleshes out and resolves apparently contradictory passages. This is called being machria--providing one's own resolutions in Torah study. The type of person we are discussing is not qualified to be machria and, therefore, his sefarim cannot be used. If it can be verified that the sefarim and the halachic rulings were issued before this person's sinful behavior began, only then can they be relied upon and quoted. JA: Can we/should we continue to cite divrei Torah in his name? RS: We are not allowed to do so. The gemara (Avodah Zarah 35b) says that if a rabbi violates halachah, one cannot say divrei Torah in his name. The statements found in the Talmud in the name of Elisha Ben Abuya were made when he was still committed to Torah observance and belief (see Tosafot, Sotah 12b). If it would appear that the books and articles of the fallen rabbi were written before he began his sinful behavior, they may be used. ... This follows something we've noticed about RHS's position in the past. He holds that pesaq involves the poseiq's full Weltenschaung. To the extent that someone should be looking to posqim from his own camp in particular. >From Kol haMevaser (a school machashav newspaper from YU), 2010, by "Staff" http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-rabbi-hershel-schachter An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter ... Who is qualified to give a pesak Halakhah (halakhic ruling)? What makes his ruling binding upon a large group of people? ... A person has to have a strong tradition in Torah logic. Common sense has its own system of logic and so does Halachah. And to know Talmudic, halachic logic, you have to be learned in all areas of Torah. A posek cannot "specialize" in one area of Halachah alone. In order to be an expert in medical Halachah, you have to know Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohoros, because everything in Halachah is interconnected and interrelated. ... Which characteristics should a person look for when choosing a personal/family posek? Is it appropriate to choose one posek for one area of Halakhah and another for a different area? Is it problematic, halakhically or otherwise, for someone to ask she'eilot to a rabbi other than the leader of his or her shul/kehillah? The Mishnah says "aseh lecha rav" - you have to pick a rav to paskn all of your she'eilos. He has to first and foremost be very knowledgeable.... Second, he has to be humble. The Gemara says that we paskn like the Beis Hillel against the Beis Shammai, because, among other reasons, the Beis Hillel were more humble than the Beis Shammai... He also has to be an honest person. Sometimes you have a rabbi who is a politician and says one thing to one person and another thing to a different person, giving everyone the answer that he wants to hear. That is obviously inappropriate. Finally, he must be a yere Shamayim (God-fearer). The Gemara talks about why the pesakim of talmidei chachamim are binding and says that it is because "sod Hashem li-yere'av" - God gives the secrets of understanding the Torah to those who fear Him. Usually, we assume that the more learned one is, the more yir'as Shamayim he has. If, however, the rabbi of my choice is very learned but seems, unfortunately, to lack yir'as Shamayim, he is not ra'ui (worthy) to receive divine assistance in figuring out what the dinim are. And one off-topic teaser: What does it mean that koah de-hetteira adif (the power of permissibility is greater) and how does one apply that rule? How does this principle accord with concepts like ha-mahamir, tavo alav berakhah (blessing should descend upon the stringent) and yere Shamayim yetse yedei sheneihem (a God-fearer tries to fulfill both)? When, if ever, is it a good idea to take upon oneself a personal humra (stricture)? (REMT already posted the same answer here years ago...) Also, there is , which RET brought to the chevrah's attention in Feb 2014 and RAM transcribed parts of. But then we were talking about that shiur's primary subject -- "Da'as Torah - What are its Halachic Parameters in Non-Halachic Issues?" 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 Wed Jun 22 00:56:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:56:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: <> If I read ir correctly this is from 2008 (not that the halachot have changed). In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. Today with the abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 09:25:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:25:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes. Now that makes sense in a neoplatonic framework, but it needs a new foundation today. This is a particular issue because in Ish HaHalacha RYBS describes these same ideas as a priori categories, and a good Kantian would attribute a priori categories, not to an objective realm, but to the structure of human thought. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 12:54:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:54:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: , <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) Kol tuv Joel rich Sent from my iPad On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: I've been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 22 14:55:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:55:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: I read it. It?s very good, and it?s what prompted me to reread Uvikashtem Misham. It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious justification. The book you cited is RYB?s exposition of the Rambam?s views, but UM is his exposition of his own views. Those are the views that require justification. DR > On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > > You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: > aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan > > This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) > Kol tuv > Joel rich > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: > >> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. >> >> Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? >> >> David Riceman >> _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Jun 22 19:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:24:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <576B485F.8020001@sero.name> On 06/22/2016 05:55 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: > It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use > neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious > justification. Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they make testable claims that can be refuted? If you mean merely that it's no longer fashionable, why should that matter? We Jews have never let fashion dictate our philosophies, and why should we? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 03:29:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:29:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20160623102930.GA24267@aishdas.org> [I also address Zev's question in this post. If yuou are only interested in that, scrol down to the line of """"""...) On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:25:01PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes : from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes... From: http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia , where I complained more of the Rambam's placing knowledge as more central to human redemption than ethic. I also noted indication that RYBS understood the Rambam differently. I simply didn't understand how, given the citations I quoted. In "Text & Texture", the RCA blog, R' Alex Sztuden suggests answers from R' JB Soloveitchik's writings to questions given on R' Soloveitchik's 1936 final exam in Jewish Philosophy. (Thereby showing that these questions were ones R' Soloveitchik considered during much of his life.) The first question, which had two parts: I.a. What is the basic idea of the "Intellectualist Theory" of the religious act? In Halakhic Mind (41-43), the Rav distinguishes between 3 different views of emotional states (and by implication, of religious states): 1. Emotions are non-cognitive. They do not express any facts or statements about the world. In a footnote, the Rav cites Hume as a typical example of this view: "Hume denied the intentional character of our emotional experiences: `A passion is an original existence...and contains not any representative quality which renders it a copy of any other existence or modification. When I am angry, I am actually possessed with the passion, and in that emotion have no more a reference to any other object, than when I am thirsty, or sick or five feet tall...'" (116, footnote 49). 2. Emotions have a cognitive component. In fact, "every intentional act is implicitly a cognitive one...by way of simple illustration, the statement `I love my country' may be broken down into three components: I. There exists a country - predication; II. This object is worthy of my love - valuation; [and] III. I love my country - consummation of the act." (43). According to the Rav, I. ("There exists a country") is a statement of fact that is in effect contained by and in the emotion. Emotions are not irrational outpourings of the heart. They make claims about the world. 3. Emotions are cognitive, but they are confused ideas. This is the Intellectualist Theory of Emotions (and religious states). "Of course, the intellectualistic school, regarding the emotional and volitional activities as modi cogitandi, had to admit some relationship between them and the objective sphere. Owing, however to the contempt that philosophers and psychologists had for the emotional act which they considered an idea confusa..." b. What are the conclusions? Criticism. The intellectualist theory correctly perceived that emotions were cognitive, but incorrectly assumed that they were inferior forms of cognition, confused ideas. For the Rav, all psychic states are intentional, and religious acts therefore contain a cognitive component, subject to elaboration, refinement and critique on its own terms. In RYBS's understanding of the Rambam, the line I am making between perfection of virtue and perfetion of knowledge simply isn't there, or is at best blurry. Which is implied by the use of the word da'as in naming "hilkhos dei'os". And yet in my blog post, I have all that counterevidence. Like the beginning of the Moreh, where he talks about the need for moral and emotional perfection being a consequence of the eitz hada'as, inferior to the prior bechitah based on emes alone, or his ranking of human perfections at the close of the Moreh, his comparing Aristo to prophets, etc... In his interview with R/Dr Alan Brill, it appears that R/Dr Lawrence Kaplan, who produced the book built from RYBS's notes on the Moreh, doesn't see RYBS's take in the Rambam aither. From or https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/rav-soloveitchik-on-the-guide-of-the-perplexed-edited-by-lawrence-kaplan Hermann Cohen's modern reading of Maimonides as ethical and Platonic was instrumental in the 20th century return to Maimonides and especially Soloveitchik's understanding of Maimonides. This lectures in this volume show how Soloveitchik both used and differed with Cohen. ... Kaplan notes that Soloveitchik's readings of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas are "highly controversial" meaning that they are less confrontations with the texts of those thinkers and more the reception and rejection as found in early 20^th century thinkers. His German Professors considered idealism as superseding the classics and Russell considered science and positivism as superseding the ancient. For these works, Maimonides was relegated to the medieval bin. Soloveitchik was going to save the great eagle. ... For Soloveitchik concern for others and responsibility for fellows as hesed is the inclusion of the other in the cosmic vision. Just as God is inclusive of the world and knows the world because it is part of Him, the Talmud scholar knows about people through his universal understanding. Kaplan points out how this is completely the opposite of Jewish thinkers such as Levinas where you actually confront the other and through the face of a real other person gains moral obligation. (I am certain that Soloveitchik pantheistic-Idealist view of ethics will elicit some comments. ) ... 2) Could you elaborate on the claim that Maimonides considers Halakhah as secondary to philosophy? How does R. Soloveitchik counter this approach? This is an old objection to Maimonides. The claim is that Maimonides follows Aristotle in maintaining that knowledge is superior to morality, both moral virtue and moral action, and, furthermore, in arguing that only intellectual knowledge possesses intrinsic value, while morality possesses only instrumental worth, serving only as a steppingstone to attaining intellectual perfection. From this it would follow that Halakhah, dealing with action, is of lesser worth than science, and that Talmud Torah, that is, the study of Halakhah, is inferior to the study of the sciences. The Rav--inaccurately by the way--quotes Graetz as stating that Maimonides in the Guide "sneered at halakhic scholarship." The Rav counters this objection by claiming that Maimonides distinguishes between two stages of ethics: pre-theoretical ethics, ethical action that precedes knowledge of the universe and God, and post-theoretical ethics, ethical action that follows upon knowledge of the universe and God. Pre-theoretical ethics is indeed inferior to theory and purely instrumental; however, post-theoretical ethics is ethics as the imitation of God's divine attributes of action of Hesed (Loving Kindness), Mishpat, (Justice), and Tzedakah (Righteousness), the ethics referred to at the very end of the Guide, and this stage of ethics constitutes the individual's highest perfection. 3) It sounds as if here Soloveitchik is just following Hermann Cohen. The Rav, as he himself admits, takes the basic distinction between pre-theoretical ethics and post- theoretical ethics from Hermann Cohen, but his understanding of the imitation of the divine attributes of action involved in post-theoretical ethics differs from Cohen. Cohen, following Kant's thought, distinguishes sharply between practical and theoretical reason, ethics and the natural order, "is" and "ought." For Cohen, God's attributes of action do not belong to the realm of causality, but to that of purpose; they are not grounded in nature, but simply serve as models for human action. What Cohen keeps apart, the Rav--and here he is, in my view and the view of others, for example, Avi Ravitzky and Dov Schwartz, more faithful to the historical Maimonides--brings together. For the Rav, the main divine attribute of action is Hesed, God's abundant lovingkindness, His "practicing beneficence toward one who has no right" to such beneficence. The prime example of Hesed, for Maimonides, is the creation of the world. This act of creation is both an ethical act, whereby God freely wills the world into existence, and an ontological act, an overflow of divine being, whereby God brings the world into being by thinking it. However, the Rav goes beyond what Maimonides states explicitly by maintaining that the deepest meaning of God's Hesed is that he not only confers existence upon the world, but continuously sustains it by including the existence of reality as whole in His order of existence. 4) Is this the basis of Soloveitchik's claim that Maimonides is a pantheist? I think he means "panentheist". But here we drift from the topic, so I am ending my too-length quote. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:24:31PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited : neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they : make testable claims that can be refuted? The law of conservation of momentum. Aristo's entire metaphysics is tied to his notion in physics that objects move when they are given impetus, and continue moving until the impetus runs out. Imetus is imparted by intellects. Intellect is what brings something min hakoach el hapo'al. Thus the Rambam's belief that the spheres -- the spinning transparent shells of quintessence in which the heavenly objects are embedded -- were intellects. Because otherwise, they would have had to stop spinning by now. And his identification of mal'akhim with Aristotle's chain of intellects, making them the metaphysical forces behind natural events and the metaphysics by which Hashem's decisions reach the world. But now we replaced the spheres with orbits, mathematical non-entities, the product of momentum and the gravity of the bodied involved. So yes, because Philosophy included Natural Philosophy, and mataphysics wend hand-in-hand with Physics to create a single picture of how the world works, Aristotilian neo-Platonism like the Rambam's philosophy did make testable claims. And those were falsified. 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 Jun 23 03:33:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: Chazon Ish Emunah & Bitochon perek 3 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Gershon via Avodah wrote: > I believe it's a Chazon Ish. > On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah < > avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > > thought of on our own. > > > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: > ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 04:45:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:45:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How would you analyze the amount of "bother" you should go to in Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? 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 Thu Jun 23 08:17:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:17:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <576BFD98.9040206@sero.name> On 06/23/2016 07:45 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in > Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to > get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the > benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether > the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 12:19:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:19:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning Message-ID: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the bracha before Krias Shema. The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved only through learning Torah. Without limud haTorah, any feelings of longing that a person may have for the Jewish way of life as practiced in the old kehillos of the towns and villages of Europe do not represent the love or fear of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Rather, they are mostly nostalgic sentiments, somewhat like that which is expressed by the song "Mein Shtetele Belz. " They have no real connection with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Such a connection can be achieved only through limud ha Torah. One cannot fear or love something that is only an idea. By learning Torah, we recognize the reality of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and, consequently, can achieve both ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem. Love and fear are really contradicting relationships. One either fears another, or loves him. Love draws one to something, and fear repels one from it. We therefore ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this tefillah that in our relationship to Him, He allow us to have both sentiments, that of our love for Him, together with our fear of violating His will. This is the meaning of v'ychad levavainu? To "fear" HaKadosh Baruch Hu does not mean that one must constantly tremble before Him. Rather, it means that one is to be afraid to violate His will. This is similar to the fear a driver has of going through a red light, which does not mean that he sits in his car and trembles. On the contrary, he can be very relaxed, while at the same time being acutely aware of the danger to his life should he go through that red light. This "fear" actually makes driving very safe. Similarly, we ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu to unify our hearts, l'yachad. to love Him, while at the same time, to make us afraid of transgressing His will. YL __________________________ BTW, I highly recommend the sefer Rav Schwab on Prayer. It gives many insights into our davening that I was most certainly not aware of. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 13:56:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:56:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning In-Reply-To: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> References: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20160623205631.GA15414@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:19:51PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments : on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the : bracha before Krias Shema. : The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved : only through learning Torah... Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The first Tablets were made by G-d, like the body of writing as explained in the Torah. The latter Tablets were made by man [Moses], as it says "Carve for yourself two stone tablets." (Exodus 34:1) Tablets are things which cause standing and existence, that it's not "letters fluttering in the air." Since they were made by Hashem, they would stand eternally. But the second ones, which were man-made, only exist subject to conditions and constraints. The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was a symbol and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the Torah [since]. Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone Tablets", so too it is advice for all who receive the Torah. Each must prepare Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word of Hashem. According to his readiness in preparing the Tablets, so will be his ability to receive. If in the beginning or even any time after that his Tablets are ruined, then his Torah will not remain. This removes much of Moses' fear, because according to the value and greatness of the person in Awe/Fear of Hashem and in middos, which are the Tablet of his heart, this will be the measure by which heaven will give him acquisition of Torah. And if he falls from his level, by that amount he will forget his Torah, just as our sages said of a number of things that cause Torah to be forgotten. About this great concept our sages told us to explain the text at the conclusion of the Torah, "and all the great Awe Inspiring acts which Moses wrought before the eyes of all of Israel." (Devarim 34:12, the closing words of the Torah) This is in a long Litvisher tradition that yir'as Shamayim is a precondition t being able to learn. Not, as Rav Schwap is quoted here, a consequence. Although a positive feedback cycle is certainly a possibility. For example, from Nefesh haChaim 4:5: According to the vast arrangement of the silo of yir'ah that the person prepared for himself, it is through that arrangement that the grain of Torah will be able to enter and be protected within him, according to how much he strengthened his silo. It is [like] a father who divides grain for his sons. He divides and gives each one a measure of grain to match what the son's silo can hold, which he [the son] prepared beforehand. For even if the father wishes and his hand is open to give him more, the son cannot receive more since his silo is not big enough to hold more. So too the father cannot now give him more. And if the son did not prepare even a small silo, then also the father can not give him anything at all for he has no guarded place where it will remain with him. So too Hashem, may His name be blessed: His "Hand" is open, as it were, to constantly bestow every person according to his reward with much wisdom and extra understanding when it will be preserved by them and will be tied onto the slate of their hearts. Everything [is given] according to the volume of one's "silo." And if a person does not prepare even a small silo, which is that he does not, heaven forbid, have within him any yir'ah whatsoever for Him, may He be blessed, so too He, may He be blessed, will not bestow any wisdom at all, since it will not be preserved by him. For his Torah would become disgusting, heaven forbid, as our Rabbis, whose memories are a blessing, said. It is about this that the verse says, "the beginning of wisdom is yir'as Hashem," (Tehillim 111). This relates directly to another post of yours of quotes from RSoP. "Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah", thread at http://j.mp/28Q172y (or http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=R#RAV%20SHIMON%20SCHWAB%20ON%20WOMEN%20LEARNING%20TORAH ) In Feb you wrote: > The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. ... > A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim > because of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is > not the object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher > or scientist, but Torah is not philosophy or science. Torah is the way > Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us. > Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man, > can it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his yiras > Shamayim. Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud Torah, she > cannot utilize it as a means to increase her many ways of connection > to Hashem. And at some point I wrote: > I realize I do not have clarity on what RSS is referring to when he says > "yir'as Shamayim". > To the Ramchal is means by default yir'as hacheit, which in turn means > fear of doing the wrong thing because it's against His Will. (In contrast > to yir'as ha'onesh, fear of the sin's punishment, which is not real > yir'as Shamayim.) According to the Ramchal, also included in yir'ah is > yir'as haromemus. But those are all feelings. How could we make a blanket > statement ike "women do not learn to fear sinning or how awe-inspiring > G-d is by learning Torah"? (Whereas men can, or in True Scotsman style: > If a man didn't gain yir'as Shamayim, it wasn't *really* learning.) > So it seems to me RSS is speaking about something more specific. Perhaps > a relationship with ol mitzvos, which is why it is only generated by > a metzuvah ve'oseh performance. But even that would be iffy, because a > person can learn an emotional stance by imagining what it would be like > if... So that by learning, if the woman could empathetically imagine > what it would be like to be a man and compelled to learn as a mitzvah > in itself, wouldn't she still learn the yir'ah behind ol mitzvos? Now, that theory too has to be scrubbed. It looks like RSS is speakiong very speicifcally about fulfilling an obligation of talmud Torah. It's not a function of obligation in general (pg 300) nor of talmd Torah without the chiyuv (pg 274). So I REALLY have no clarity. 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 Fri Jun 24 02:14:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36431880-c73a-a5c8-e53d-25218ec972ef@zahav.net.il> There is also an ideological element to the reduced numbers. Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook strongly pressured the DL schools to not hire chareidi teachers (for obvious reasons). Ben On 6/22/2016 9:56 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. > Today with the > abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a > DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:17:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in Monsey. Ben On 6/23/2016 1:45 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in Eretz > Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get > birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit > of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah > is on the cohanim alone? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:01:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birkhat cohanim Message-ID: <> Certainly not a mitzvah in the formal sense of the word. However Rav Melamed explains that the chazzan (or someone in the congregation) calls out "cohanim" to signify that we wish to accept the blessing and only then can the cohanim begin see http://ph.yhb.org.il/02-20-07/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 05:20:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:20:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. > Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in > Monsey. > Ben The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. [Email #2. -micha] >> On 06/23/2016 07:45 Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? > Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > Zev The Haflaah among others. Listen here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/858947 Rabbi Ezra Schwartz-Duchening for non kohanim Kol tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 06:46:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576D399C.3070707@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 05:17 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. But only those who are in front of them, not those behind them. So I suppose any kohen, on any day, is only blessing half of Am Yisrael. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:12:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6deabf95-1f8d-0240-e958-c2518f9d8be0@zahav.net.il> On 6/24/2016 2:20 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one > stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. Because the people behind the cohenim are able to walk a couple of feet and choose not to whereas anyone else is considered anoos and therefore they are included in the bracha. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:17:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:17:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: >> How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in >> Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to >> get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the >> benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? >Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the kohanim. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:12:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 01:17 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >>Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > > The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer > Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the > kohanim. Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:10:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:10:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160624181048.GA19921@aishdas.org> In AhS yomi today, YD 240:34, RYME discusses the issur of listening to a parent who tells you to violate the din. One cannot discuss achei dokheh lav because the pasuq excludes such commands from a parent's authority. He ends: And memela, also in an issur derabbanan it is against the Torah. For HQBH commanded not to veer from anything the chakhamim say. So, those who say lo sasur is only an asmakhta for obeying a mitzvah derabbanan, do they say kibud av does include an order to violate a lave derabbanan? Or do they have a different sevara? :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:15:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160624181511.GB19921@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:54:09PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The : Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai : that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva See also AhS se'if 39, who says the same, but in more detail. The Lekhem Mishnah lmits the Machloqes to while the father is alive, saying that even the Rambam does not require KaVA of an evil parent fter their petirah. The Kesef Limits it to mishel ha'av, the son of an evil parent is not chayav lehachzir lo mishelo. And he believes Rashi explains the gemara in a manner consistent with the Tur's position. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:18:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev for a berakhah? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:22:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:22:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? > : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say > : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. > > Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev > for a berakhah? Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for women according to the BeHaG? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 01:54:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:54:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: R' Zev Sero asked: "Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed?" The Biur Halacha at the beginning of Siman 128 quotes from the Sefer Charedim that there is a mitzva on the tzibur to be blessed by the kohanim. The Haflaah in Kesubos 24b uses this Charedim to explain why it is prohibited for a non-Kohen to go up to duchen, He says that if a Yisrael goes up to duchess he is being mevatel his mitzva of receiving the beracha. See also the Minchas Chinuch 378 who quotes this Charedim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 25 11:05:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:05:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > explanation of the Rambam. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not > the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a > safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important . R. Avraham pointed out that problem of the authority of the rabbis is a basic problem and not just a difficulty with a Rambam and Ramban. The better the source of their authority the more it looks like a de-oraisa. The more one goes away from a de-oraisa the weaker their authority. His major answer is that every time there is a dichotomy the only way out is to find a third middle path. In general this replaces a binary decision by a continuum path. His standard example is the definition of bald. Someone who has one hair is obviously bald. It is also obvious that adding one hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. The conclusion by induction is that every one is bald. The answer to the riddle that the dichotomy of bald not-bald is not correct. Adding one more hair makes someone less bald. It is a continuum and not a binary. R Avraham (RMA) brought the Nesivos that also (or more correctly first) states that there are two types of violating a derabbanan. One is to rebel against the concept of derabbanan and that is lo tasur according to the Rambam (he also hinted that in the next shiur the Ramban will agree with the Rambam). OTOH if one violates the rabbanan rule "le-teavon" then it is a strictly rabbinical rule. Hence, Nesivot concludes that if one one violates a rabbanan "be-shogeg" one does not need kaparah. In essence he has done nothing wrong. The lo-tasur is only for rebellion and he has not rebelled. Note that practically there can't be rebellion and safek. In modern terms the netivot says that all rabbanan decrees are gavra and not cheftza. Eating meat and milk (cooked together) the mixture is prohibited. Eating chicken and milk cooked together there is nothing wrong with the mixture. It is rebelling against the chachamim to eat it on purpose (lo tasur) or rabbinic if eaten le-teavon. RMA pointed out that this again comes back to the problem of why to listen to the rabbis Note that the Rogachover holds that every mitzvat aseh is only gavra and not cheftza A second explanation was from the Rogatchover: The prohibition from the Torah only demands that we accept the authority of the rabbis. If someone accepts that the rabbis can make decrees but decides that nevertheless he can't/won't listen then there is no Torah prohibition. This leaves open the question how is it possible that one can accept the authority of the rabbis but still disagree with them. It seems to bring back the original question of what good is their authority if one need not listen, To explain this RMA brought a Tzlach. The Nodah BeYehuda states that sevara yields a de-oraisa only if their is a connecting pasuk. Thus killing someone to save oneself is a deoraisa based on sevara (everyones blood is equal). However when sevara creates a new category then it is only derabbanan. The classic example is berachot - eating without a bracha is LIKE stealing. So the rabbis based on this sevara required berachot. However, it is only a derabbanan since one is not actually stealing. (answers a question of the Pnei Yehoshua). Similarly for something to be a Torah law there has to be both a commandment and a content. In order for something to be a de-oraisa it needs BOTH a source and content. So violating shabbat is one prohibition even though there are many pesukim since the content is the same. OTOH "lav she-be-chlalot" has only one pasuk but many contents and so also there is no punishment. According to Rambam anything no explicit in the Torah has no punishment when learned from derashot. So the prohibition of "Lo Tasur" gives a generalization that there is a commandment to listen to the rabbis. The rabbis applied to this to various cases but this is no longer explicit in the pasuk and so no longer a de-oraisa. This is different than "lifne iver" where giving bad advice is an example of the pasuk and so from the Torah. In summary there are 3 types of derashot 1) examples not explicit in the pasuk - clasical example is neder. The Torah says one can't violate one's neder. Hoever the individual person decides the specific application 2) Asmachta (some meforshim) - just a help to memory. Ritva argues that some asmachtot are really the intention of the pasuk. However since it is only hinted it is a rabbanan and not a deoraisa i.e. there is content but no commandment. 3) Things learned indirectly from the pasuk there is a sevara (content) but no commandment. Finally RMA argues that finding a third/middle path is the only way out and so Ramban has to agree with Rambam. The arguments are more misunderstandings and semantics. Another example is Avelut. Rambam states explicitly that ivisiting the avel or making the kallah happy rabbinic. He the quotes the pasuk of "ve-ahavta le-reacha komecha" . This eems to be self-contradictory. The answer is the same as for "Lo Tasur". There is content but no explicit commandment and so it is rabbinic even though hinted in the pasuk. Someone who "loves" (not romantic) the Kallah but doesnt make her happy fulfills the Torah obligation but not the rabbinic one. Someone who makes her happy but doent "love" her fulfils the rabbinic command but not the Torah obligation. RMA then hinted to a wider application to general philosophical questions where one has observations and generalizations. How is it possible to generate a physical law (eg Maxwell's equations) when all we have are a finite number of observations. In other words are mathematical descriptions of nature inherent in nature or man-made. De-raisa is like observations we only have what is explicit. Derabbanan are generalizations. In both cases we need to find a middle/continuum path Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 08:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev >> for a berakhah? > Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? > In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for > women according to the BeHaG? In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: <576FFEA2.1070206@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 11:51 AM, elazar teitz wrote: > In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf > person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of > noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer > Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the > blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. Good distinction. Even awareness is presumably not necessary, since we bring babies to be blessed. But is this distinction really relevant to the question of whether to make a bracha? Where do we see that a bracha depends on a chiyuv to hear rather than merely to be present? Further question: is a bracha said on attending hakhel? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:13:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:13:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: <<< According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? >>> As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the latter than the former. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:34:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and then continues on the cruise. We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many days -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:32:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:32:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57709038.8010307@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:34 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for > someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every > day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a > difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and > then continues on the cruise. > > We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips > on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of > the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many > days How much more so. If one says it (without shem umalchus) every morning of the journey, even at a hotel where one might be staying for a day or two to rest, how much more so must one say it (again without shem umalchus) every morning if one is actually travelling at that very moment. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:30:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:30:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57708FB9.2050601@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:13 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be > blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: >> According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? > As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one > does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. > Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the > recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. > How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the > kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Our case is different, because once the cohen has answered the call and gone up to the duchan he can't change his mind. He's now obligated to bless. And if he hasn't done it yet that day then he has to do it anyway. > Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha > only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel > and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely > being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is > indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the > latter than the former. But we *do* have an obligation to say a bracha, which we are yotzei by listening to the baal tokeia's or baal korei's; if he has already been yotzei himself then he does *not* say the bracha again, and one of the listeners says it for everyone. Here, however, we are not yotzei with the cohanim's bracha, since it doesn't apply to us; we are not sanctified with Aharon's kedusha, and we were not commanded to bless but (according to this opinion) to be blessed. So if we're not yotzei their bracha why don't we say our own (or have the chazan say it for us)? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 02:10:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:10:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: In my original post I was too short. Therefore I will expand a little about tefillat haderech and my question 1) Rashi holds that tefillat haderech (THD) is requesting permission from Hashem and so can only be said within the first parsah. Bahag holds that THD is asking for protection and so can be said anytime up to a parsah before the end of the trip. Rosh and SA pasken like Behag. Rambam doesn't mention THD and meforshim try and explain why 2) Ashkenazim measure parsah as a distance (about 4km) even when using a car or plane. ROY translated parsah to a time of 72 minutes. 3) Kolbo says that one says THD only once a day even if one made a stop during the day (quoted in SA). Hence, MB says that if one is touring and stops every night in a hotel one says THD every morning with a bracha. Yalkut Yosef says that if one travels 40 minutes going to work and 40 minutes back they don't combine and one says THS without a bracha 4) Radvaz talks about an extended trip and says that even if one is not stopping in a "yishuv" and if if one is travelling all night he says THD every day but a bracha only on the first day. Pri Chadash disagrees says that one says THD only on the first day even if it is an extended trip MB says that if one makes a short stop then one should say THD the next morning without a bracha 5) As an aside RSZA paskens that one does not say THD traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as there are cities all along the way. Yalkut Yosef disagrees. RSZA also says that on a plane one should say THD shortly after the plane leaves the ground My question concerned travelling on a boat either several day journey without stops across the Atlantic or else a cruise with many stops in ports. According to the Pri Chadash one certainly doesn't say THD after the first day. However, even according to the Radvaz one might argue that there is no need to say THD after the first day since one always stays on the boat day and night and it is different than a caravan. Of course one can always say THD without a bracha but the question is whether one needs to. I have no surveys but in my limited experience people do not say THD every day on a cruise even without a bracha -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 06:17:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei halachot in monetary matters Message-ID: A new web site exists collecting piskei halachot in financial matters especially from eretz chemda courts in Israel currently 336 rulings with a search engine psakim.org -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 07:39:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:39:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Buying Sliced Watermelon Message-ID: <1467038393622.33144@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. I am preparing a picnic. Can I buy sliced watermelon from the supermarket? A. The Shach (YD 96:3) cites a concern that a knife often contains a fatty residue even after it has been washed or wiped with a rag. Therefore, if a non-kosher knife was used to cut kosher food, some of the residue on the knife would transfer to the food. Rama (96:1, 4) writes that with regards to fruit, we can assume that the manufacturer or processor has dedicated utensils. Even if the knife is not dedicated to cutting fruit, however, if large quantities of fruit are being cut or sliced, we can assume that whatever non-kosher residue was on the knife was removed when cutting the first few fruit, which are batel (nullified) in the majority of other fruit. One may, therefore, purchase cut watermelon in a supermarket or in a fruit store. The market would likely have dedicated utensils and in any event it is preparing large quantities of fruit. In a non-kosher restaurant or catered event, however, the fruit would not be permitted because the knives very likely are not dedicated and food preparation switches from one product to the next. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 13:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:55:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim Message-ID: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R' Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in "Ve ha-ish Moshe Anav m'od" from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Thanks, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 19:28:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim In-Reply-To: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> References: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> Message-ID: <5771E0DF.8050101@sero.name> On 06/27/2016 04:55 PM, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R? > Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. > > In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in ?Ve > ha-ish Moshe Anav m?od? from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Here you go: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19165&pgnum=207 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 28 03:03:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:03:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is dirt clean? Message-ID: If a Jew wants to eat bread, halacha requires a certain form of hand-washing, but that has nothing to do with this thread. There are also certain situations where halacha recognizes a certain *spiritual* uncleanliness, and requires a certain hand-washing to remedy it. Most (all?) of these situations are listed in S"A O"C 4:18, and include things like getting up from bed, exiting a bathroom, removing one's shoes, and others. It is noteworthy that this se'if begins with the words "These things require washing with water", as if to suggest that washing with other things would not be effective. Indeed, the Mishne Brurah #39 comments on the word "with water": > However, for tefilah - and certainly for learning Torah - > a mere cleaning is enough for any of these cases, as > noted below in se'if 22, in the case of one who gets up > from bed. And this is certainly [acceptable] if there is > no [water available]. However, removing the Ruach Raah > requires specifically water. ... But this thread isn't about those situations either. I am mentioning it only in order to clearly establish that there is yet another category of situations, namely the ones that the MB pointed to as being in Se'if 22. The Mechaber wrote there (S"A O"C 4:22): > If one has no water, he should wipe his hands on a > pebble or dirt or anything that cleans, and say the > bracha 'Al Nekiyus Yadayim'. This [procedure] is > effective for tefilah, but not to remove the ruach > raah which is on [the hands]. The Mechaber's phrase "anything that cleans", and his wording for the bracha in such cases, not to mention his comment about ruach raah at the end -- All these things make it abundantly clear that we are talking about *physical* cleanliness, as opposed to other kinds of cleanliness. And the Mechaber writes similarly in O"C 92:4, that prior to Tefilah, > One must wash his hands with water if he has some, and > if he doesn't have any [the Mechaber explains how far > one must go to obtain water]. But if he is worried that > he will pass the time limit for Tefilah, then he should > clean his hands with a pebble or dirt or anything that > cleans. My question is simple: Why is dirt in the category of "things which clean"? It seems to me that if I would rub my hands with dirt they would (almost always) be even dirtier afterwards than before. The only answer I can think of is that halacha considers dirt to be clean. Is it possible that the *only* uncleanliness that prohibits tefila are the things listed in OC 4:21 - touching covered parts of one's body, etc. (and perhaps other specific listings elsewhere) Here's a practical situation. Suppose someone is at work, and it is close to Mincha time. So he goes to the bathroom, exits, and does the best washing you can imagine, with whatever chumros you like. Then he realizes he has a bit more time until mincha, so he decides to go back to work, but with constant attention to being very careful not to scratch his head, or touch under his shirt, or any of the things that would require him to wash again before mincha. But his job is a butcher, and he will get his hands bloody. Or he is a painter or printer, and he'll get paint or ink on his hands. Or he is a farmer or construction worker, and he'll get actual earth on his hands. And now it is time for mincha. Are his hands halachically clean or dirty? If you tell me that they are dirty, how does it help to wipe his hands in the dirt? I have more questions on this topic, but I hope this will get the ball rolling. Thank you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:32:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rishon vs Acharon and other kelalei pesak Message-ID: <20160629193257.GA12798@aishdas.org> There are some interesting se'ifim toward the end of AhS YD 242 that touch on a number of our perennial topics. Se'ifin 58-62 discuss the din of whether a rav can pasqen on something that someone else already pasqened on, and if so, is a sho'el allowed to ask the second rav the self-same question. In 59 he opines (nir'eh LAD) that the Raavad, Ramban, Rashba, Rosh and Ran (AZ 7) all say the issue is not the kavod of the first talmid chakham, but because once he prohibits, chal alei chatichah de'isura [CACD]. Therefore, if the first TC made an error in a zil qeri bei rav matter, it's like someone who avoids a piece of shuman thinking it's cheilev, and there is no CACD. However, ther 2nd TC *may* say "I think it's allowed, but I will not permit something R' XYZ already prohibited." If a talmid chakham was matir and no one acted on it, another TC can be machmir. But if it was acted upon, he can't. I do not see an explanation why. Later we learn that a TC of an obviously higher caliber, or a moreh de'asra in his own town, can indeed overrule an earlier TC's ruling. Another interesting topic is 35 -- if acharonim disagree with a rishon whose opinion was available in their day, we follow the acharonim. If the rishon was not (eg Me'iri), we say that perhaps the acharonim would have ruledd differently had they seen it. But you cznnot rule against a ga'on. Yeish omerim you never hold like acharonim against rishonim, but yesh lehisyasheiv bazeh. However, if the rishon find one position compelling (yakhol lehachira) he may pasqen as he sees (except against geonim). 36: Just as it is assur to permit the prohibited, so too it is assur to prohibit the permitted. Even if there is no hefseid, or the item is owned by a non-Jew. However, safeiq and being chosheish for the opinoin of many rishonim is sufficient motive . According to the Shakh this is because "shelo ya'asu agudos agudos." In general the AhS refers to the Shakh's qunetrus on kelalei hapesaq a lot. Even though on a couple of things he holds like the Rama over the Shakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:46:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yanik Message-ID: <20160629194624.GA12037@aishdas.org> AhS YD 244 is about vehadarta penei zaqein -- both someone chronologically old (as long as he is not a rasha or an am ha'aretz who therefore ends up non-observant by ignorance), and a talmid chakham. In se'if 3 he says that a zaqein for the sake of this mitzvah would even include a TC who is a yaniq. Not a qatan. So what's a yaniq? Someone 17 or younger. Are there any mitzvos for which 17 yrs old is a significant age? The ony reference I could dream up is R' Elazar ben Azaria, who was 17, was supposed to be getting kavod (being nasi), and turned gray (keben shiv'im shanah) overnight. Problem is, he was 18 according to the Bavli; it's the Yerushalmi who has him becoming nasi at 16, and saying this quote at 17. And of cvourse the bigger problem is that there is no reason to turn the age REbA happened to be into a cutoff line. Can anyone think of something? 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 Thu Jun 30 02:10:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:10:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] meanings Message-ID: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or should you pick one? 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 Thu Jun 30 03:51:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:51:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma > before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities > with different meanings. (By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or > should you pick one? Another example in Hallel: ze hayom `asa Hashem, nagila venismha bo (is "bo" hayom or Hashem? Most translations seem to go for "hayom", but "veyyismehu becha Yisrael" in the kedushat hayom of 18 for regalim fits with "bo" meaning Hashem) My humble opinion: for pesukim, if there are two possibilities it's not by chance, and mikra lo yotze mipeshuto -- including all its peshatim. For tefilla, I'm not so sure, but I think you should probably pick one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:13:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:10:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma : before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities : with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off : or should you pick one? As per my answer to you at this week's wonderful Audio Roundup , I believe you *should* switch off. Poets make a point of layering on multiple meanings when they wish to convey a picture using al of them. I believe the point of ambiguity in tefillah is just so that you can emphasize different shades of meaning depending on what you want to way this particular time. (I accept tips for plugging a member's web site via Paypal. Contact me off-list. No, seriously, the biggest problem with RJR's Audio Roundup over on TM is that he tempts you with too many good shiurim for just one week of listening time.) There is a basic grammatical problem, two nouns, both the object of the sentence, with nothing indicating which is the primary object, which the secondary, nor anything connecting them into a single phrase that could be one object. Thanks to previous Avodah discussions, I have a list of ways to read "umasbia lekhol chai ratzon": - Pashut peshat [check your typical siddur translation] would be as though the pasuq read "umasbia' ritzon kol chai" -- leaving every desire satisfied. (Or maybe "umasbia lekhol chai es tetzono".) RYGB disliked this peshat because it's experimentally false. Many people die with unfulfilled desires. - Rav Schwab says that everyone is dependent on "yennem's" liking him for his parnassa.... Hashem provides this needed "ratzon". (RGD) RMPoppers suggests [on Mesorah] that "ratzon" was the very quality that HQBH is bequeathing, IIRC, something akin to granting "chein". - [T]he Malbim's pshat - Ratzon Hashem. (RYGB) [W]ould would work better if the pasuq read "... umasbia' lechol chei beratzon" .(me) - RAYK points out that without ratzon, goals and purposes for a person to persue, life is empty. So he too says that Hashem bestows ratzon -- but means it in the sense of having desire, not being desired/desirable. Hashem does us a tovah by giving us retzonos to pursue. Someone else noted the parallel in pereq 104:27-28 as an argument for what I called "pashut peshat": > Kulam alecha yesaberun / Eynai kol alecha yesabeiru > Lases ochlam b'ito / V'atah nosein lahem achlam b'ito > Titein lahem yilkotun. > Tiftach yadcha / Poseach es yadech > yisbe'un tov. / U'masbiya l'kol chay ratzon. > The whole string of preceding psukim in 104 refer to G-d's ability to > sustain the world in a very real and material way, not abstractions like > bestowing "razton". But I think that David haMelekh created the obscure phrasing because the real answer is "(E) All of the above". I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel beratzon..." works. When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase vehasheiv: - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, - ve'ishei Yisrael. Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to restore the BHMQ bfirst? Or do we pun on "ishei Yisrael" pretending it means "anshei Yisrael" but in a unique conjugation? But the question is how to find meaning in a pre-existing text under a new circumstance. Not multiuple layers of original intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:44:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:44:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9CWhenever_you_find_yourself_on_the_sid?= =?utf-8?q?e_of_the_majority=2C_it_is_time_to_reform_=28or_pause_and_refle?= =?utf-8?b?Y3QpLuKAnSAg4oCVIE1hcmsgVHdhaW4=?= Message-ID: We all know the minority report by Joshua and Caleb showers its praises on the land and counsels b?nai Yisroel to go up to it. The ten other ?spies? give a very negative report against the land and can see only giants, fortified cities and difficulties they feel are insurmountable. These ten men of small stature conclude their report with the following: ?And there we saw the giants (nephilim), the sons of the giant (Anak), from among the giants; And we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes and so we were in their sight. (Bamidbar 13:33). The Midrash states that at these words, God said: ?I have no objection to your saying, ?We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes,? but it is inappropriate if you say, ?and so were were in their sight.? How do you know how you appeared to them? How do you know if you did not appear to them to be angels?? (Midrash Bamidar Rabbah, XVL, II). This is a profound psychological insight. How many times we feel insignificant and think everyone else looks at us the same. Just because you feel inferior doesn?t mean you are. That?s the meaning of ?You?re your own worst enemy." Shabbat shalom. ri From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 12:50:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <577577ED.2090001@sero.name> On 06/30/2016 02:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. > Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to > say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) > > In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel > beratzon..." works. > > When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in > a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the > period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase > vehasheiv: > - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, > - ve'ishei Yisrael. > Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept > the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to > restore the BHMQ bfirst? I don't see the problem, or the "repurposing". The phrase means exactly what it always meant. The only change the bracha needed to adapt it to the new reality was the addition of a new request, to restore the avodah, before the request to accept our korbanos and tefillos. Once the new request is fulfilled, the next one won't be a problem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 06:57:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 09:57:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Navigating Kitchen Appliance Technology Message-ID: <20160401135835.593F217FAB8@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 07:39:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> Message-ID: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. -- 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 Fri Apr 1 10:44:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:44:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401174415.GA2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:28:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I think the real difference between the two cases is how deeply one must : dig to see the wires and the switches: In the floor mat all you'd need, I : guess, is to cut through a centimeter or two of rubber to see the wires, : while the motion detector would need a microscope and an engineering degree : just to understand what you're looking at. But even with the mat, no one : can actually see the electricity move simply as a result of standing on it. I think those two are different in kind. In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Let's say there was an unlit room at the end of a long hall, so there was no way to light it without chilul Shabbos. Would it be mutar to write in such a room? Or is writing assur, regardless of the situation? If a bug is born of eggs that are large enough to be visible, but happen to be hidden within uncut meat, is the maggot kosher? In the motion detector (or the fitbit), the change is not detectible by an unaided human, regardless of the situation. People cannot see the microscopic. (And yes, I realize that claim is true by definition of the word "microscopic"). The change is outside the realm of unaided human senses in principle, not in situation. If one looks through water through a microscope and finds water bears and other micrscopic bugs in it, does that water become treif? Is all tap water or distilled water in bottles that were open too long treif because one in theory would find such things in most water? (For a moment there I thought about mayim she-lanu, but then realized this would be a much more restrictive issur than that.) : There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, : but in my experience this idea is very new. Not even ten years old perhaps. Rav Dovid Lifshitz spoke about halakhah in general ignoring the microscopic some time between Sep 1984 and Jun 1986. The permissability of killing bugs that have no piryah verivyah on Shabbos (or of eating them) is miSinai. Or at least, as old as some pre-Chazal rav pasqened the deOraisa that way, since Chazal take it for granted. The real motive for saying halakhah only applies to the sensible is to find a new explanation for an old heter to avoid saying a din deOraisa is in error, even though the old explanation (abiogensis of these insects) was shown to be empirically false. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 10:57:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> References: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160401175728.GC2751@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 02:06:19AM -0400, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote: : And here's the link to the source sheet: : http://cdn.yutorah.org/materials/Source Sheet-510279.pdf RMT's discussion is of ex rays, and really focuses on whether the developing is koseiv. (Also, mesayeia, how often is it really needed, etc...) If anything, I would read him as assuming that the invisiable change to the film is mutar. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 11:18:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:18:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401181840.GD2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:01PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : Seems similar to an automatic watch, except for there being post-Shabbos : utility to the recorded unintentional-exercise-on-Shabbos data. Also, the automatic watch, becoause it is never allowed to run down, is never actually broken to need repairs. What melakhah would be involved, even if the winding were observable? (And I think in principle it is... one can see the spring and how tight it is.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 15:54:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:54:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: I wrote: > ... But even with the mat, no one can actually see the electricity > move simply as a result of standing on it. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think those two are different in kind. > > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible hypothetically, albeit not situationally? If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I missing something here? Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." I will concede that he clearly has some wiggle room there, and he doesn't specify why he is unsure, but I never thought that the invisibility of the electrons was an issue, since their power is so evident. Could it be that the tide has turned, and more poskim are looking at the electrons? I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 2 21:33:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, but in my experience this idea is very new. .... Let's say that there is a posek who rules leniently on these devices, and he bases his ruling on this principle that tiny things can be ignored. What precedent is there? What lenient rulings existed 25 or 50 years ago, based on that same principle? Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice and didn't mean to kill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:34:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: This is many ways similar to the use of electronic water meters on shabbos. The meter has no external display that changes and all it does on Shabbos is record how much water you are using. The Charedi poskim in israel have all assumed that it is absolutely forbidden. You can see the kol korehs here: http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2012/09/using-electronic-water-meters-on-shabbos.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:41:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I realise that I was a bit terse in my original question so I would like to expand on the halachic questions. After talking to 2 expert sofrim the story is as follows. There are 2 halachic problems with black on white (traditional retzuos): 1. Since the black is just painted on, the paint peels off leaving a part (even small) of the retzua that is not black. The MB is machmir that this will pasul the retzua 2. The KSA has a chumra that the sides of the retzuos should be black as well. The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the above 2 issues. 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't peel off or crack, it stays black 2. The sides are black as well. The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the gedolim today use black on black retzuos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 07:38:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 10:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57012B00.10604@sero.name> Another advantage of black-on-black: Al pi din only the loop that holds the bayis to your arm or head has to be top-side-out. The rest of the retzuah that goes around your arm or that hangs down past the kesher can face any way. But if you have the white showing, inevitably someone will come up to you tell you to turn it around or just turn it around themselves. With black-on-black this won't happen. -- 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 Sun Apr 3 13:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 22:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> References: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> Message-ID: <57017B0A.4040206@zahav.net.il> This could be different because even if you walk on grass there is no guarantee that you're going to kill anything. Whereas in today's digital world, you walk in various cities, you're going to activate some circuits somewhere. Ben On 4/3/2016 6:33 AM, via Avodah wrote: > I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always > been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you > might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice > and didn't mean to kill. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 13:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:02:27 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> References: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Message-ID: Date: Fri 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 EDT From: Zev Sero > Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? > Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? > If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. Oros Eilim Me'adamim are explained by the Yerushalmi to mean rams hit - whilst living - so as to produce bruising, which subsequently produced the 'red' skins, on being flayed.Rashi (ad loc.) appears to concede with that explanation.Lulei d'midtofino, I would suggest the redness was due to a tannery process, much as the old Yemenite Sifrei Torah were reddish [brown].(Note: Me'adamim is most probably a brownish red, as in Poroh Adumoh.) Dovid Rubin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 10:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar Message-ID: <20160403170927.74F6617FAFA@nexus.stevens.edu> Just like most other Bar Mitzvah bochurim, my son Mordechai Zev started donning his Tefillin a while before his actual Bar Mitzvah this past Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini, as part of his preparations. Yet, unlike most others who start donning Tefillin two or three months, or more commonly, one month prior to the actual 13th birthday, my son started wearing Tefillin 31 days before his Bar Mitzvah, an opinion not explicitly found in any early halachic codex. But to understand why, some background about Double Adars is in order... To understand why, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos! Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 03:17:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy Message-ID: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> By Dr Lawrence Fishman or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: In many academic circles, previous to the excavation of Khirbet Qeiyafa and its publication, scholars denied the entire notion of a centralized Jewish polity in the late 11th-early 9th centuries BCE. Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as some of the discoveries in ancient Jerusalem have shown that this view should be rejected.... Because of the [Bible's] presentation of [the history of this period] in quasi-mythic terms, it cannot be taken literally by historians. Yet properly evaluated it can and should contribute in broad outlines to the construction of a historical picture of our period.... The early kings of Israel rose to political power beginning with a limited territorial base later supplemented by military conquest. Saul's territory was that of the tribe of Benjamin. His son, Ishbaal (this name appears on an inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa), who ruled for a very brief period..., also claimed to rule over Ephraim, Gilead, the Jezreel [Valley], and Asher. David first ruled in the territory of Judah. His capital was in Hebron in the Judean Hills for seven years until he moved it to Jerusalem. The Bible attests to his beginning as a chieftain and traces the evolution and machinations that led to his kingship.... As David gained power and expanded from his Judean base, he ruled parts of what would later be considered Israel.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 04:13:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:13:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy In-Reply-To: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> References: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57039DBE.4010907@starways.net> Aside from his name being Schiffman, and not Fishman, I have to disagree with his identifications. The Iron II remains he's talking about are not from the United Monarchy. Rather, they are from the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement. And in fact, they *match* the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement, but do not in any way match the United Monarchy, which is why he had to give the caveat that: /The elimination of these more extreme, minimalist views of the period of the United Monarchy does not give us an excuse to adopt a simplistic or fundamentalist reading of the biblical historical accounts and the archaeological evidence. Rather, it calls upon us to ask how, when taken together, the age-old historical traditions of the Jewish people can be melded with archaeological evidence from the Land of Israel and evidence from surrounding cultures in the ancient Near East. Our challenge, therefore, is not to ask whether or not biblical accounts and archaeological evidence are true or not, but rather how, when taken together, the evidence available to us can allow us to reconstruct a sense of what the society was like that produced the biblical traditions that we have received.// / This is a roundabout way of saying that the remains don't match the biblical narrative, but we can, if we try really hard, kinda see how the remains were later enlarged into the biblical fantasy. He also says: /In the monarchic period a uniformity of architectural forms throughout Judah/Israel has been discovered... Architecturally the public city gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor are strikingly similar: the walls are very thick and feature casemates where people lived or that were used for storage... The uniformity of the features of the great public buildings in these cities suggests a royal administration./ Substituting Iron II for the incorrect "monarchic period", this is understandable, since the uniform architecture was the result of local governors from the same Assyrian empire. But of course, the architecture of Solomon was on a scale far above that of the Iron II buildings. Interestingly enough, the cities where these uniform city gates were found are, each of them, in the regional capitols of areas conquered by Assyria. He leaves off Lachish, which has the same gates, and which was the Assyrian capitol of their province of Judea in the time between their conquest of all Judea other than Jerusalem and their withdrawal after they were struck down before the gates of Jerusalem. Lisa On 4/5/2016 1:17 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > By Dr Lawrence Fishman > > or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 14:57:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:57:10 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 From: Marty Bluke via Avodah ... > The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are > made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time > and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an > additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the > above 2 issues. > 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't > peel off or crack, it stays black > 2. The sides are black as well. > The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the > traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't > the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the > gedolim today use black on black retzuos This is not so simple. It might be argued that the 'optional' addition of a glossy side is not so optional. Rashi says, the outside of the retsuos need to be the 'noy' [beauty]. In the old manner of painting - and not soaking - the retsuos, this was quite simple. The painted side represented the noy. Soaking the skins does not give a pleasant finished article. Thus, i would argue, the addition of a glossy side is imperative. A point that was missed is the opinion of the Arizal, that the retsuos of shel rosh should be black on both sides. (However, from previous argument it would appear that might entail a nice finish on both sides.) The objection that this new process is a chiddush is somewhat faulty. I possess retsuos of over 200 years. It is clear that the original method of manufacture was very different 200 years ago. The entire skin was not treated. Rather, strips were cut off and then painted. This enabled the sides to be painted as well. Thus, the entire way retsuos are manufactured nowadays represents a departure from tradition. The reason, perhaps, why gedolim may be reluctant on taking on this chumrah, is that it may be misconstrued as halacha. Dovid Rubin Your soul is a part of God, part of His Infinite Essence. You are beyond limit, estimation or assessment. Ever since creation, the world has been waiting for you. Since your soul realised itself, it has been waiting for its time to perform its unique tasks of improvement. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 06:27:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:27:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakheh ess shinnav Message-ID: <57050EC8.1010702@gmail.com> I got a laugh from Larry's responses: >From http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2016/04/05/weekly-digest-news-and-essays-in-and-out-of-orthodoxy-week-of-parshas-tazria-5776/ ...Dr. Steven Bayme, who has emerged recently as the primary spokesman for PORAT...validates Biblical Criticism even when it negates parts of the Torah.... Snippet: ''Did Moses actually write that Abraham pursued his foes until 'Dan' in order to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:14), or was the place name a later editorial insert to indicate what by then had become a well-known locale? Were there two ?Yairs? who each happened to have conquered 30 villages in the Bashan 200 years apart (Deut. 3:14; Judg. 10:3-4) or was this but one incident occurring later but inserted retrospectively into the Book of Numbers as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Bashan?'' =================== larry rothenberg April 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm Steve Bayme, 3000 years from now ? ''Were there really two presidents named Bush, a father and son, who both went to war with an Iraqi dictator named Saddam Hussein? or was this but one incident occurring later but added retrospectively into American history textbooks as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Iraq?'' ==================== Naftali April 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm In the offending ''snippet'' all Dr Bayme does is raise questions. Is the mere asking of questions now considered unOrthodox? in which case, what does an Orthodox Seder look like? -------------- larry April 5, 2016 at 3:46 pm The answer depends on whether you are a chacham or a rasha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:14:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chayav Livsumei In-Reply-To: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> References: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160406191405.GB5241@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : In the words of Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter in Torah Web on "Torah : and Nevuah" I found it at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rsch_tzav.html : In his commentary to the mishnayos (end of Sanhedrin), Rambam lists what : he considers are the thirteen principles of our faith. We believe in : prophecy. It is possible for G-d to communicate with man. We also believe : that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was on a higher level than that of : any of the other prophets. What does this mean? Is Rambam grading the : prophets? If Moshe Rabbeinu gets an A+, what does Micha get? And what : grade does Chavakuk deserve? : : No, this is not a matter of grading Moshe's prophecy. What Rambam means to : say is that the only prophet who was ever given mitzvos (with a binding : force for all future generations) was Moshe Rabbeinu. His was the only : prophecy that was on the level of Torah. I didn't get this paragraph. Because: 1- As it says further down: : Moshe Rabbeinu was the only prophet who was given what we technically : refer to as "mitzvos", commandments which are binding throughout all : the future generations, because they constitute the description of G-d's : essence, which is not subject to change. None of the prophets were ever : shown "the image of God", i.e., were never given "mitzvos". They were : only given a "hora'as sha'ah", of a temporary nature only... Well, if Moshe alone was shown the tzelem E-lokim (which is necessary to receive mitzvos), isn't that grading MRAH's above Micha or Chavaquq, who did not? Now if you're going to say that's the content of the nevu'ah, not the quality of navi (pe'ula, not gavra), the pasuq itself says, "Lo qam navi od beYisrael keMosheh, asher yeda'o H' Panim el panim." (Devarim 34:10) 2- The Rambam himself says that Moshe's nevu'ah was qualitatively unique. In the 7th ikar, the Rambam describes the "peh el peh" (Bamidbar 12:8) nevu'ah of Moshe as being unique in 4 ways: a- no intermediary -- nevu'ah direct from HQBH b- he didn't need to be asleep or in a trance c- it didn't cause him to weaken and shudder (c.f. Daniel 8:8-9, 16) d- Moshe could choose when he got nevu'ah; other nevi'im received when and if Hashem chose. In the Moreh 2:35, we find: ... For I must tell you that whatever I say here of prophecy refers exclusively to the form of the prophecy of all prophets before and after Moses. But as to the prophecy of Moses I will not discuss it in this work with one single word, whether directly or indirectly, because, in my opinion, the term prophet is applied to Moses and other men homonymously. A similar distinction, I think, must be made between the miracles wrought by Moses and those wrought by other prophets, for his signs are not of the same class as the miracles of other prophets... The word "nev'uah" is only used as a homonym -- it has a different meaning when used WRT Moshe than when we call anyone else a navi / nev'uah. This goes beyond grading Moshe an A+ and some other navi an A or less. That would be saying they are at different gradations on the same scale. What Moshe did wasn't nevu'ah as all in the same sense of the word. It was a different type of perception. See also Moreh 2:45, where he lists 11 gradations of nevu'ah -- all of which in the usual sense of the word. (Moshe's being to different to even be listed as a 12th.) The Rambam was far from afraid of ranking prophecy, if not prophets. But he does make a distinction between Moshe and the other nevi'im beyond who received mitzvos and who not. As I said, I don't think that's RHS's intent either, as can bee seen in the second snippet I left in this post. I just don't know what his intent is. 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 Wed Apr 6 13:26:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:26:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:28:26AM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : http://shuihaber.com/2016/03/31/the-arba-parshiyos/ ... : Rav Sperber explains that on the 5th Shabbos, they would then go back : to where they had left off. This seems to be the literal meaning of the : mishna that says: "on the fifth Shabbos, we resume reading like usual." As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also possible. The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a : 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year : cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the : Community in Eretz Yisroel. Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from EY than among Sepharadim. The question is when did Ashkenaz itself switch. It must have been centuries before the time in discussion in any case. Machzor Vitri (R' Simchah miVitrie -- a talmid of Rashi and the Ri's grandfather) discusss leiniing Bereishis on the 2nd day of Sheini Atzeres, the terms for Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis, and even the reshus for each. But it would be ironic if Ashkenaz became the bastion of Babylonian lening, spreading it to EY. I guess it's true: there is no one so vehement as the newly converted. : Lastly, there is an old minhag to say Yotzros and Krovos during the : Shabbos morning Tefilla... : This minhag became popular amongst the Chassidim... But I think most loyally maintained bvy Yekkes, due to the aforementioned ancient Ashkenazi attitude toward piut in general. : The Rema comments that the R'i, Rashba and the Tur all hold that there : is no issue with interrupting your regular tefilla for this, but if you : do not say the Yotzros it is still fine... (Note: change fn 10 to "OC 68:1".) The Rama takes it for granted that the minyan is saying them, "vekhein nohagin bekhol hameqomos le'amram". So even though he hold "vehameiqil ve'eino omeram lo hifsid" -- as long as you're with the tzibbur and not even learning during the piyut -- I am not sure he is actually advocating for skipping it. Ad RSH put it "it is still fine". I just wanted to point out that he would NOT permit what I myself do -- use the time to learn. "Ein le'adam lifrosh atzmo meihatzibur". He repeated this in 90:10, where he advocates saying the piyutim with the tzibbur. "Velo yifrosh min hatzibur afilu la'asoq bedivrei Torah". : The Minhag of the Chasam Sofer was not to recite the piyutim during : davening, rather he would sing them during the Shabbos or YomTov : seudah. The Mesora is that the Chasam Sofer learnt this from his rebbe : the Baal Hafla'ah who learnt it form the Mezritcher Maggid who learnt : it from the Baal Shem Tov... Whatever happened to the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah"? 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 Apr 6 13:58:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406205847.GE5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger responded: : > I think those two are different in kind. : : > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use : > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) : > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. : : Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible : hypothetically, albeit not situationally? We are comparing two ways of making the door open. If making the door open is not a halachic problem, then there is no contrast. I am saying that nothing physical happens to an electric eye or UV sensor to cause the motor to go on. However, with the mat, one is moving two metal plates together (or a conductive tape against a plate). Cut away the rubber, and you would see the circuit close. There is a visible cause and a visible effect. Even if part of the causality is only explainable by appeal to the quantum scale. (BTW, atoms are mostly vacuum. It's only quantum scale repulsion of electrons that fully explains why hitting a ball with a bat changes the course of the ball; why things don't just go through eachother.) ... : If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For : it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the : electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I : missing something here? It wouldn't be the motion of the electronc, even if they were macroscopic. You might as well prohibit flushing toilets and rolling marbles down a ramp, if one inherently prohibites the giving elecrons a chance to use their potential energy (voltage). All of the theories about why electricity is assur depend on the visible effects of the cercuit, or the visible making of a circuit, not the moving of current itself. (Except of course RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan even without a Sanhedrin.) : Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which : opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei. Also on that list: sparking, unless the motor's spin rate is based on the frequency of the AC current coming in. But PRDNL wouldn't help with a deOraisa. (RYE Spektor and ROY permit it for a derabbanan, the MB only for a double-derabbanan.) Water meters were mentioned. I posted about PRDNL anhd water meters in 2012 . Click on the subject line and see the thread. : Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe : Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone : on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the : electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur : d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." ... That's OC 4:84. Who doesn't talk about the invisible, but about electric power. "Vreo'in zeh bechush", although he means you can hear it from the loudspeaker. I do not see RMF saying that power that goes into results that in principle you cannot sense would be assur. : I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does : try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can : be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has : something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both : teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". : It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely : speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be : meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should : also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. But another part of the permissibility of speaking in the presence of someone with a hearing aid is that at times even with the hearing aid, the user doesn't hear anything, thus ruling out pesiq reishei, reducing it to davar she'ein miskavein. The problem I have with your "it sounds to me" is that it begs the question: Can there be havarah that can't be sensed? (Including: Can there be havarah if something burns below yad soledes bo?) Tir'u baTov! -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 Wed Apr 6 14:50:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between > Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the > other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also > possible. It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there are two. > The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read whichever sidra is next on the roster, but we are not back on track because we still have some of the four parshiyos coming up. Only on the shabbos after Hachodesh are we "back on track", at least until Pesach comes. >> This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a >> 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year >> cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the >> Community in Eretz Yisroel. This explanation is missing a major piece of the puzzle. It's not that the Baalei Tosfos had such enormous influence on Bnei EY that they induced them to change their minhag. They never had such an influence. Rather, the crusaders completely wiped out the Yishuv of EY. By the end of the 12th century there were essentially no Jews left; the only place minhag EY survived was at the EY shul in Cairo. Slowly EY began to be repopulated, mostly by Ashkenazi olim. When the Ramban arrived there was a small community in Akko (which was under Xian rule) but not even a minyan of Jews living in Y'm. Thus the new EY community that developed, and that the Sefardim found there when they came after 1492, was composed of European olim with European minhagim, including reading the Torah on the Bavli cycle. > Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of > the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that > Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from > EY than among Sepharadim. How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. -- 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 Apr 6 15:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:10:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read : whichever sidra is next on the roster... Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? ... :> Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of :> the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that :> Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from :> EY than among Sepharadim. : How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue : for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. Then why did Ashk start out triennial? Admittedly, it changed by Rashi's day, so "start out" was quite short, but still, there are records of debate about it. Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the siyum every third Shavuos.) Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were shorter. There are better indicators, but this period in Jewish History is more RRW's thing than mine. Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and finally Egypt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 15:22:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:22:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... > :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. > > : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we > : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read > : whichever sidra is next on the roster... > > Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" > for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track > but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. >> How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue >> for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. > Then why did Ashk start out triennial? I've never heard that it did. > Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. How so? > (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the > siyum every third Shavuos.) Sorry, I don't recall that. > Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that > died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were > shorter. Is there evidence for that, or is it just speculation? BTW Targum survived in some communities for some special readings, even after it stopped being used for the whole Torah. So it's possible that when and where Akdamos were written it was still done on Shavuos even if it wasn't the whole year. > Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and > finally Egypt. Again, is this established, or speculation derived from precisely the proposition that you are trying to derive from it? BTW I just came across another survival of ancient minhag EY: The kiddush Rosh Chodesh that is well-attested in EY in the first millennium (e.g. in Mas' Sofrim and in the list of differences between EY and Bavel) survived into the 13th century in the Minhag-EY shul in Fostat, but only on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Eventually minhag EY died out in Egypt too, but the idea of having a special seder Rosh Chodesh Nissan lived on, and is still practised by Egyptian Jews today, under the name "Seder al-Tawhid" (Seder Hayyichud). -- 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 Apr 6 15:29:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:29:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between >> Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the >> other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also >> possible. >> > > It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. > However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. > There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there > are two. There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and Hahodesh. There is also a mnemonic for the dates of the hafsakot according on the date of 1 Adar, "Zivdu: Zyah Bu Dad Ubyu" but I've never found it very useful because the mnemonic is such a tongue-twister that I can never remember it and end up working out the dates from scratch and reverse engineering the mnemonic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 17:59:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:22:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. : The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is : irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. Again, I am not insisting this implication is muchrach, but look at the mishnah (Megillah 3:4): RC Adar that falls out on Shabbos, we read P Sheqalim... On the 2nd, Zakhor On the 3rd, Parah Adumah On the 4th, "HaChodesh haZeh Lakhem" On the 5th, we return to the sequence... The Ran (quoted by Tosafos YT) only discussed "basheini" saying it's the 2nd week after Sheqalim or after the break described in the ellipses at the end of the first line of my "translation". :> Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. : How so? The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning of speach..." Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying he is prefacing. In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn bera H'..." 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 Wed Apr 6 18:10:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:10:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5705B370.3080401@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 08:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning > of speach..." > > Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into > referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY > beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying > he is prefacing. > > In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning > of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn > bera H'..." Why not a preface to the day's laining? -- 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 Apr 6 19:33:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:33:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger's posts are very well thought-out. I've reached the limits of my knowledge on this topic. I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? RMB wrote: > ... RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we > all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan > even without a Sanhedrin. Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we *know* are working, but *appear* to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really can't complain. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 21:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. > The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between > 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd > and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and > Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and > Hahodesh. Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. I don't see how a siman helps with that. [Email #2. -mi] On 04/06/2016 09:10 PM, Zev Sero wrote [about Akdamus]: > Why not a preface to the day's laining? Note that Tosfos Megillah 24a d"h Uvenavi says that in their day they still did targum of the haftaros on Pesach and Shavuos, and also that of matan torah (i.e. the leining of the first day of Shavuos), but not that of any other leining or haftarah (d"h Lo Shanu on the previous page). Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. -- 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 Apr 6 23:04:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:04:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. >> The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between >> 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd >> and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and >> Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and >> Hahodesh. >> > > Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. > I don't see how a siman helps with that. I checked RSZ's source, which turns out to be Yerushalmi Megilla 3:5. The context of the siman is a mahloket in the Yerushalmi whether Parah is defined as the Shabbat before Hahodesh or the Shabbat after Purim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 03:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:18:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407101838.GB3151@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:10:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who : wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he : was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since : by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. ... in parallel to the already existing Aqdamos. So it could be a 2nd hand reflection of the cycle in use when Aqdamus was written, rather than a dispoof of connection to the cycle. (BTW, the "-ta" ending is traditionally ascribed to the idea that when a Jew stops learning Torah (tav) he must immediately begin again (alef). A homily that does fit a siyum on Devarim and starting Bereishis far better than leining inyana deyoma. Of course, who knows if that was really the author's intent. It is a "cute" understanding of the piut and worth sharing either way.) And Yetziv Pisgam does not refer to pausing to give a preface before starting The Word. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:55:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, > where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his > conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads > him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, > I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to > Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. > And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches > Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need > to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we know are > working, but appear to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are > issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really > can't complain. > Akiva Miller Pretty much what R' Asher Weiss says un putting electricity in the maakeh bpatish category defined as things that chazal didn't fit in other categories. However I think he would say gdolei haposkim will come to a consensus, not "each for himself" on major categories. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 08:40:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Kitniyot, paper goods Message-ID: <20160407154022.7A2F717FBF0@nexus.stevens.edu> Can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. On Pesach, can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover? A. Paper plates, paper towels and napkins generally contain starch. Some forms of raw starch are kitniyot, such as corn starch, while other forms of starch, such as wheat starch, are actual chametz. In the U.S, it can safely be assumed that starch used in manufacturing is kitniyot, most probably corn-based. Though one should not intentionally add kitniyot to food, with respect to paper goods this is not a concern because the starch that is part and parcel of the paper itself is nifsal mei'achila (inedible). (If paper goods contain wheat starch, the fact that it is nifsal mei'achila may not suffice to permit their use, see Magen Avrohom 442:4). Based on the above, in the US, one may use paper plates, paper towels and napkins even if not certified for Passover. For a full list of non-food items that can be used on Passover without certification please go to https://oukosher.org/passover/guidelines/non-food-items/non-food-items/. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 09:53:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160407165337.GA21819@aishdas.org> RAM entered the discussion with: > There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, > but in my experience this idea is very new. And appears to be trying to leave with: > I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great > example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, > when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? (I agree that we lack clarity here, but I am not sure why RAM thinks it's a problem with the language rather than the ideas themselves.) Well, except that this notion that halakhah doesn't concern itself with phenomenona that people cannot experience unaided (in any situation) isn't limited to a discussion of electricity or even of Shabbos. The idea that canges internal to a chip in a fitbit wouldn't be an issue for hilkhos Shabbos (until there is some macroscopic effect of those changes) is by parallel to discussions of the permissibility of drinking water that contains creatures about the same size as a trace (thinkg "wire") on a chip. 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 Thu Apr 7 12:25:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:25:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy Message-ID: <20160407192530.8B8E617FAC2@nexus.stevens.edu> Last Shabbos we read Parshas Shmini, best known for discussing and specifying the requirements for discerning which animals are considered kosher. But what is a buffalo considered? Can we partake of a nice juicy buffalo burger? Although the Shulchan Aruch himself rules that a buffalo is considered a kosher beheimah, it is quite certain that he was not referring to our American buffalo, which, actually a bison, was unknown at the time... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:14:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:14:33 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A study of Dayan Usher Weiss on LED lights in his Tshuvos will reveal his Shita that such things are likely to be considered an issur under the rubric of Makeh B'patish. I didn't merit understanding all the halachic logic but I feel he would apply it here as well. We can be halachically exploitative and also include the view that your walking on Shabbos should not be the same as Chol! I'm sure many of us have seen the strange Shabbos walk avoiding large steps. Walking with a Fitbit may possibly be construed as transgressing this possuk in Nach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 07:30:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:30:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Matzah before Passover Message-ID: <20160408143111.6480417FAAD@nexus.stevens.edu> I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan... OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Am I permitted to eat matzah which is labeled "Not Kosher for Passover"? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Matzos which are labeled "Not Kosher for Passover" are made without a full-time mashgiach present during production, and the water used in kneading the dough is not mayim she'lanu (specially drawn water). Though we would not eat these matzahs on Pesach, it is not certain that the matzahs are absolute chametz. Mishnah Berurah 471:12 writes that the Rabbinic prohibition to not eat matzah on Erev Pesach, applies even to matzah that has folds or bubbles, since such matzahs are of questionable status, and they are not absolute chametz. This would imply that "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs may not be eaten Erev Pesach, since these matzahs are also of questionable status. Nonetheless, Rav Schachter, Shlita, maintains that the definition of matzah with respect to the minhag (practiced by some) not to eat matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh is not the same as the definition of matzah relative to Erev Pesach. Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 214:1) writes that a minhag is a form of a vow. Vows are interpreted in accordance with common usage of language. Since most people consider "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs to be chametz, they may be consumed until Erev Pesach. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] Forward Unsubscribe [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 09:01:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:01:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eshbaal Message-ID: <20160408160147.GA26885@aishdas.org> >From http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/first-person-banning-baal or http://j.mp/1VdtbxE :-)BBii! -Micha Biblical Archaeology Society First Person: Banning Ba'al As published in the March/April 2016 Biblical Archaeology Review Hershel Shanks -- 04/04/2016 Was the proper name Eshbaal -- man of Ba'al -- banned in Judah after King David's time? A recent analysis suggests that it was. Ba'al, meaning lord or master, was a common divine appellative in Canaan and neighboring areas during Biblical periods, most frequently referring to the storm god. Very recently an inscription was uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa -- a site already famous for a late 11th-10th-century B.C.E. inscription -- about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. According to excavator Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, the site is probably an imposing fortress erected by King David facing the Philistines. ... The name 'Ishba'al or, more commonly, Eshbaal, is well known from the Bible. It means "man of Ba'al." (The name Beda` appears for the first time in this inscription.) ... In the Bible various Ba'al names appear of people who lived in King David's time or earlier (Jerubbaal [Judges 6:32], Meribbaal [1 Chronicles 9:40], etc.). But the Bible mentions no Ba'al names after this -- neither Ba'al nor Eshbaal. Ba'al names simply do not appear in the Bible after David's time. The archaeological situation is a bit, but not completely, different. We have more than a thousand seals and seal impressions (bullae) and hundreds of inscriptions from Israel and Judah from the post-David period (ninth-sixth centuries B.C.E.). The name Eshbaal is not to be found among these names. The situation with the name Ba'al is slightly different; it does occasionally appear in Israel -- and of course in Philistia, Ammon and Phoenicia. But not in Judah! It seems that Ba'al and Eshbaal were banned in David's kingdom. One reason may have been that, at least officially, Judah was monotheistic. Thus, names constructed with a form of a foreign deity's name -- especially of Ba'al, who was Yahweh's rival -- would not have been considered kosher. In addition, David's predecessor and rival, King Saul, fathered a son named Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33 [2]) who reigned for two years (2 Samuel 2:10) -- another good reason to bar the name in David's kingdom. [2] "Ishbosheth" in the account in 2 Samuel 2-4. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 08:52:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:52:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> References: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160411155203.GA3225@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:36:04PM IDT, R Ben Waxman posted to Areivim: : https://twitter.com/benwaxman/status/718898333075566592 : Translation of something Rav Sharki said in an article on dati : students attending university: : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? This has to be a mistranslation. After all, being unable to find an answer is FAR short of proving no answer exists. Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and tragedy. 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil 3. God exists First proposal. Therefore 4. There is no evil But observation will tell you: 5. There is evil We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. So really only 3 & 5 are plausible open to denial: either there is no G-d, or there is no evil. As I posted there: Theists consistently reject #2 "If an OOO Being exists, there would be no evil." That is given short shrift, and therefore the real argument is really swept under the rug. A world in which the OOO Being provides all the good might be worse than a world in which the OOO Being wants to provide others the opportunity to be provides of good themselves. The assumption is that a world of passive recipients is better (more good) than a world of contributors. This argument is kind of like saying that: 1- A parent has the ability to see more obvious sources of pain in advance and help a child avoid them. 2- A good parent would try to do so. Yet 3- Good parents allow their toddlers to fall on their bums when learning to walk -- despite seeing it coming. Therefore, 4- there are no good parents. The answer is -- #2 is false. There are better goods than preventing all pain. But notice I didn't answer the question of theodicy, tzadiq vera lo. Arguably the question is unanswerable to humans. (Admittedly there are O Jews who deny #5, and assert that tragedy is an illusion. My argument is more that the best universe is one that has the lesser evil, that a paradox in the human condition makes a world with no tragedy itself imperfect. The question of the reality of evil is a tangent worth exploring, but not to go even further afield than my point.) R' Sherky is NOT possibly arguing we should therefore accept Prof Haslanger's argument, though. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: While RUS's name appears around the web both as "Sharky" and "Sherky", I'm going with the evidence of . -- 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 Mon Apr 11 16:21:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:21:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag Message-ID: I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, no chrain on fish. I wonder if any other groups have such a minhag , a nd what might be the origin of such a custom. 2nd question. In re nuts on pesach , It seems all the major agencies cite that any additive free whole nuts are ok without special cert. ( pecans excepted) . However the detroit vaad recommends assuring the nuts are paked in a hametz free facility. This is NOT noted by OU, CRChic, etc. i wonder if this would be an economic hardship that the non haredim lidvar hashem would hold to. Interestingly the costco kirkland nuts remark that they maybe packed in a place w wheat, soy ,etc... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 18:59:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:59:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat > ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, > no chrain on fish Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 08:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> References: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> Message-ID: <570D11D4.8000908@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 09:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: >> I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat >> ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, >> no chrain on fish http://chabadlibrary.org/books/chasidim/otzar/4/14/39.htm Note that although this does include all the ingredients of charoses, it does not include eggs, or the greens that might be used for karpas, contrary to the sources I will cite later. > Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first > day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first > day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, > so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. > > Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems > to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be > "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. The minhag not to eat maror before the seder goes back at least to the Rashba and Rashi. Although the Bet Yosef dismisses it, the Rama cites it, and it appears to be common in many communities, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi. The BY's question is answered by many, saying that even in the case of matzah "teavon" in this context means novelty, and the pleasure that comes from that, not an actual desire for the taste of the food, so it doesn't matter whether the food tastes good or bad, or isn't even tasted at all. See under "shulchan orech", that the Ashkenazi custom is not to eat even whole eggs at the first seder, but rather to eat only beaten eggs, which is probably the origin of the common minhag to eat the egg mashed up in salt-water as a "soup". See also who says it's the common minhag of sefardim not to eat lettuce or greens, beyond the requirements, for a day before each seder, including at the first seder. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 14:28:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:28:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness Message-ID: Cannot taste the bitterness 1. "Filled me with bitter herbs - Hisbiaani bMrorim - hirvani Laana - sated of bitter" - Midrash Eichah in Psicha and on the Passuk - compares the Exodus of Mitzrayim to the Exile after the First Temple was destroyed. 2. Apparently the bitter taste of these vegetables was familiar to all. 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after kiddush. 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush. A simple person might prefer to start off with Maror ASAP. Someone may have stolen the Karpas. Those who pursue radishes for Karpas may prefer it as a secondary variety of Maror, reminding us not to consider this the REAL maror, which can only be eaten with the Matzah, in advance of next year's Korban Pesach. 5. What if one ate the Karpas leaning - bhesseiba? That would explain the child's train of thought - you eat bitter herbs - for slavery and you ate them leaning? Sorry - I have no source yet for that. When Matza was just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed Thaddeus of Rome. 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth, just call in Rabbi Vaya to check it, or alternatively? take it off the menu, finding some other food for appetizer. 7. skip the appetizer. Renal patients who cannot drink begin with Kiddush on Matzah, which some would much prefer. The Magid would be after the meal had initialized. 8. Lately I checked two heads of Romaine lettuce. When I sample some leaves, no bitterness was to be found, just a very mild sweetness. in fact the Pri Chadash in back of SA Orach Chaim - openly advocates that totally sweet lettuce - sans bitterness - is perfectly acceptable! To recap, the Mishnah lists five grain varieties for Matzah, which are exclusive. It then lists 5 varieties for Maror, but even the Amoraim debated what to buy. Rav Huna Bar abba ? sought Maror - the bitterest herb eponymous with bitterness, as the Mehadrin would seek. Rava chided him - Chas Rachmana Alan - Hashem had consideration for us and prefers Chassa (pun - means lettuce) which has some sweetness. 9. I take this metaphorically - Hashem is always keeping the balance of sweetness and bittterness in the fortunes of the Jerwish People. Fixating on bitterness can lead to bad results. 10. The Pri Chadash quotes the famous Aruch (of Rome, a century before Rashi, disciple perhaps of Rabeinu Chananeil) on Charchavina, one of the 5 species of the Mishna, defined generically - "one sort of bitter herbs". 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 sons taste it ? 12. Is Maror a specific species exact type of plant? Ateres Tzvi (margin of OC 473) and Elya Rabba combine to say there is a family called Lettuga - lettuces. That helps immensely - as the leading species candidate is "bitter lettuce" - Hebrew Chassa Matzpen - has spine of bumps on its leaf, and is a glorified dandelion! My neighbor the botanist has no idea where to find it but he offered me some fresh horseradish leaves. Horseradish relates to the cabbage family - including endives, which get some mention. 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection. My father's tears would flow as he ground his horseradish every year. The Chochmas Shlomo, Rav Shlomo Kluger, seems to have the high road of directness here. Rambamists can see that the examples of foods barely edible - which barely are considered normal foods - in Shvisas Asor - are these very vegetables - Chizrin. 15. The famous Rav Chaim Berlin, son of the Netziv, apparently got medical advice not to eat horseradish, and sought grounds to absolve his Neder. He sent a letter to his father the Netziv whether he should continue to eat Khrein. Netziv - as predictable - answers - use Sallatin - lettuce - like the common practice, and also the zayis olive size is very small. [Meromei Sadeh]. 16. In OC 473 the Lvush and Elya Rabba - praise to the publishers of the new Levush set - discuss Maror, and Ateres Tzvi explains that any lettuce is fine, as long as it is bitter. 17. Biologically chickory and lettuce are very close. If even the cabbages - the latin name braccidae are also included in Maror, then perhaps both kale in its beauty and varieties are included, even perhaps arugula. 18. Perhaps I will make the bracha on kale, then arugula, then Romaine, then horseradish for mimetic imitation of my father. 19. For me - no more sweet or tasteless Maror, I cannot make it bitter anymore. 20. See also Kovetz - in back of the old Rambams. See Aruch al Hashas who has in kilayim and in other places diagrams and exact species names for all the candidates mentioned in the mishnayos. There is an alphabetical index in the last volume. 21. Identification of Chizrin with Chazeres is no sure thing. Professor Felix has a sefer called haChaklaut..... which explains from a farmer's point of view what it means that a crop thrives in the shade. 22. This is actually a call for help! I imagine most people deal with these questions annually. Please - any opinion or information will be helpful to me. 23. David Wacholder 5:15 PM (2 minutes ago) Email: dwacholder at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Wed Apr 13 09:07:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:07:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum Message-ID: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: https://soundcloud.com/jroot-radio/yosef-wikler-apr-07?in=jroot-radio/sets/kashrus-on-the-air. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me or click here to subscribe kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 13 13:16:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum In-Reply-To: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds > this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in > 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered > Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's > largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... This is last years info. The link is to an article from 5775. The OU & Star-K are still certifying quinoa, as they did last year. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 14 18:51:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:51:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos Message-ID: Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this (even opening with the remark that this halacha is "pashut - simple"), yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. I will concede that this was a literally parenthetical (or rather, bracketed) comment, and perhaps we should not darshen too much into it. But on the other hand, he had the option of saying that a choleh may *eat* kitnyos himself, and insted he took the extra step of saying that *we* may do the cooking. And yet, the Chofetz Chaim omitted the warning which is so ubiquitous today, that the cooking should be done in separate pots, not to be eaten from by healthy Ashkenazim. So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. (Plenty of poskim talk about ta'aroves kitniyos, but that's usually an after-the-fact situation, and I don't want to get bogged down on whether or not the situations are similar. I'd rather hear about those who explicitly address the keilim issue.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 07:15:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:15:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160415141538.GA30368@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:51:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that : Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid : ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. RMF explains that one may drink whisky (51 weeks a year) aged in wine casks because we do not prohibit ta'am stam yeinam. The core of his argument is that stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6 (YD 134:5). One can taste the wine in a mixture of one part wine to 6 parts water. (IM YD 1:62) Well, qitniyos is batel berov. (Rama OC 453:1, see MB ad loc that explains the Rama must mean where the qitniyos is a mi'ut, and is not permitting every mixture.) Bringing me to the need to switch the formula for KLP Coca Cola. Corn is a late edition to qitniyos, as it is a New World plant. Corn syrup adds the issue of mei qitniyos. A 12 oz can of coke has 140 Cal (Pepsi: 150). High fructose corn syrup is 4 Cal/gm, so that 12 fluid oz can cannot contain more than 35 gm = 1-1/4 oz (weight) mei qitniyos. Less than 10%, never mind rov. So, the problem with standard American Coke is mei iffy-qitniyos that is batul. And yet it's avoided on Pesach? (According to 80% of tasters prefer Mexican Coke, which -- like KLP Coke -- only differs by the use of sugar rather than HFCS. So I hope no one from Coke is actually reading this post.) :-)BBii! -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 Fri Apr 15 07:49:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness Message-ID: 1. R' Micha pointed out the Yerushalmi discussion whether Chassa metuka sweet lettuce is kosher. That shows that the name - Chazeret Chasa - synonymous with Marror is sufficient, and bitter taste is not necessary. 2. R' Chaim Kanievsky points out that the Chazon Ish - Orach Chaim page 398 in Otzar Hachochma - strongly rejects that conclusion from the Yerushalmi! (hat tip to R' Kalman Gutman!) 3. After 6 lines pointing out how vital the taste of Maror is, CI shows the absurds of such a conclusion - if so you can leave the Maror in Chazeres, and need not taste it at all - swallow in a sieve - and since any vegetable which is bitter is sufficient to be Yotzei, we see that the bitter taste is the governing principle. 4. 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond edible. 6. Thus we should pursue bitter lettuce. The paradox is that the lettuce industry spends all its resources to prevent "bolting" - becoming bitter. The economy runs on sweet lettuce, as CI also pointed out. Pesach is in spring, so it is not so simple. 7. That would be the practical problem the Yerushalmi is attacking. You do not need the strongest bitterness, mild transitional bitterness sufficient. 8. The super-kosher bug-free industry now markets "greenhouse" kale and arugula, which are mildly bitter. I purchased both last night. Usually they are used by French chefs. This is a classic Chazon Ish. He wanted Torah based lifestyle, and Mehadrin bitterness in Maror fits right in with his theme. Build on the sound simple meaning of the Torah. -- David Wacholder Email: dwacholder at gmail.com dwacholder at optonline.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:59:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:59:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos Message-ID: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Or if you want, I am equally reviving the threads "Minhag Avos and Minhag haMakom" (see the group of threads at ) "Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva" "Paradigm Changes in Halacha" or the quite timely "obsession with kitniyot" In AhS this week, I found I was not alone in concluding from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim ch.4, cases in both TB and RY) that there is a general rule binding one (of a community) to maintain minhag avos. (At least when there is no conflicting single minhag hamaqom.) The AhS (YD 119:42, closing paranthetic) cites the minhag of Benei Baishan (Pesachim 50b) not to travel from Tzur to Tzidon on erev Shabbos. His case is a visitor who is keeping he minhagim of his host community. The Shakh and Maharal Chaviv say that if everyone else is eatting something that by his minhag is prohibited -- not as local pesaq, but as actual minhag -- he may eat it with them. The AhS leaves it with a tzarikh iyun gadol, because visiting a place should not allow their minhagim to override minhag avos. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:43:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:43:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57110C14.1000403@sero.name> On 04/15/2016 10:49 AM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: > 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your > lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond > edible. This is not true. The ChTz says no such thing. -- 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 Sun Apr 17 09:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit Message-ID: I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat. Both of them are important experts in halacha and modern technology Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need t fixler said he heard the same psak from t ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 03:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:27:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 1:02 PM Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both > Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat.... > Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it > was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need r fixler said he heard > the same psak from r ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan Why is it not mesaken mane? [Transliteration mine. -micha] -- Shui Haber From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:27:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Shui Haber wrote: > Why is it not mesaken mane? [transliteration still mine -micha] They hold that anything that cannot be seen or felt is nor metaken-maneh or any other melacha. Of course if one pushes buttons or has a model in which the results are shown immediately on the watch then it would be forbidden. The assumption is that nothing on the watch indicates that it is recording. Rosen indicated to me that he has written all this but I do not at present have his teshuva. The general approach of tzomet is that (almost) all their products are meant for special individuals etc, sick, police, doctors etc when needed. Though they don't manufacturer a smart watch the same principles hold. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:51:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:51:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us from my question.) My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can remember. But the hagada seems to say more. It does not merely tell what the proper response should be, but it also seems to direct that response to specific responder(s). I am referring to the hagada's words, "v'af atah". What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! Am I totally off track? Anyone see my question? Does anyone have a translation or perush that doesn't ignore the word "af"? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB: > > Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger > (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) > G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and > tragedy. > > 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO > 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil > 3. God exists > > First proposal. Therefore > 4. There is no evil > > But observation will tell you: > 5. There is evil > > We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. > (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually once started a thread here called ?What can?t God do??. Some examples: Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? Can God lie? I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. > (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a > prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil > to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, God, have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God really want that? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:04:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:04:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5714F781.9020002@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:51 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: > > (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem > (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar > (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh > (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved > > (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us > from my question.) I will, however, point out that translating it "knock out", or as any kind of blow, is completely ignorant. There is simply no way that it can mean that. So where does this stupid idea come from? It *could* come from some amhoretz confusing it with "hakei", hei kaf hei, meaning to hit. But I think it's more likely to come from Yiddish, a language the baal hagada never even heard of, and the phrase "hack ois", or in English "hack out". > My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply > have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that > would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can > remember. What specific wording are you suggesting instead of the ones the baal hagadah uses? > What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should > hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument > being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh > his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! > > Am I totally off track? I think so. How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him. -- 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 Mon Apr 18 08:09:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:09:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: What is the status of cooking kitniyot in a pot on Pesach (for ashkenazim). Outside of Israel this is relevant only for small children, sick etc. In Israel it is relevant this year as to whether one can cook kitniyot on the 7th day of Pesach for the immediate following shabbat. All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the pot even for use the following year ! He further claims that this is the standard custom. I have seen that RHS allows use the same day. Does anyone know of others who require actually kashering the pot even if it won't be used until Pesach next year. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:04:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: I asked why the Hagada uses the words "v'af atah" to introduce the answer to the rasha. R' Zev Sero responded: > How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked > son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that > your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say > something harsh to him. Interesting thought. But if so, then for the other OOPS! I hadn't noticed that these exact same words introduce the Hagada's answer to the chacham. And rightly so - Your child is asking a detailed question, and you too should respond with a detailed answer. My bad. Thanks! But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? (The She'eino Yodea Lish'ol never asks anything at all, so there is no congruency to invoke RZS's suggestion.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:14:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:14:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57156A61.2000800@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:04 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > > But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: > > 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? > 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? > 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? Because he simply quotes the pasuk. In the cases of the first two sons he (for some reason) davka *doesn't* quote the pasuk's response (Avadim Hayinu to the chacham and Zevach Pesach Hu to the rasha), but makes one up for the chacham, and borrows the she'eino yodea lish'ol's answer for the rasha. For the second two sons he simply quotes the pesukim verbatim. -- 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 Tue Apr 19 13:34:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:34:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to others subunits (e.g. ethnic). Any good actuary (or even a poor one) can tell you correlation doesn't prove causation, but it does provide some thoughts on some interesting questions (e.g. why the switch to ethnic minhagim from geographic ones?). 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 01:07:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:07:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: a story from years ago A friend of mine lived near RMF on the lower east side. One year RMF invited him for seder. However the friend didn't eat gebrochs but was too polite to tell RMF that he couldn't come because he was more machmir and so made up some excuse. Same thing happened the next year. The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat at my seder. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 05:17:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:17:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special Message-ID: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Pesach is a Yom Tov of diverse moods. The tragic and heroic, the mournful and hopeful, the somber and sentimental ? strangely commingled and reflected in the services and rituals. One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l?zecher aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b?Av. Interestingly, the first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b?Av. So as Pesach begins Friday evening this year (and last), so too, Tisha b?Av (actual date) begins Friday evening this year (and last). At our seder, we read about the Four Children (quite different from each other, but a portion of each of the sons in all of us). On Pesach we usher in the solemn days of Sefirah, which cast a spell upon the mirthful spirit of this Yom Tov and which recalls the ill-fated Bar Kochba rebellion with its gloomy aftermath; and on the same night, we open the door for Eliyahu HaNavi, the harbinger of glad tidings. On the day we recite Yizkor (with sad overtones), we recite Hallel (quite the opposite). On the day when we read the Haftorah of the ?Valley of the Dry Bones,? and we ask with the prophet: ?Son of man, can these bones live?? (Ezek. 37); this very same day, we read Shir Hashirim, the song of youth and of hope. When we think of all the trouble, travail, terrorism in the world and some of the trials and tribulations in our own lives, we can drink four cups of wine and temporarily forget our troubles. May your present be better than your past and not as good as your future! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:42:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:42:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special In-Reply-To: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> References: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Message-ID: <20160420154253.GA21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:17:29AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l'zecher : aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b'Av. Interestingly, the : first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b'Av. The iqar is to have two cooked foods. Egg and shankbone is a layer on top of that. Judging from the Ari's lining up the items on the ke'arah with the 10 sefiros, wre are using the egg as the cooked food in memory of the chagigah, and the bone to regall the qorban pesach. One could link that to mourning, that we are mourning the real seder, complete with qorban, as we sit down to our best-we-can-do one. And we did lose the ability to make a qorban pesach on 9 beAv. But the egg isn't really about aveilus directly. 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 Wed Apr 20 08:47:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:47:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:07:55AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly : asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the : real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 : guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said : now you can eat at my seder. I know also the IM permits Ashkenazim who daven "Sfard" to switch back to Ashkenaz (even over 150 years after the family first switched to). But I didn't think he was in general a believer in the idea that Litvisher minhagim were superior to other East European ones. Just that davening was differenct because it's a switch back to the earlier nusach. So what's going on here? Why would he encourage someone to quit the minhag of gebrochts? (For weaker grounds than usually argued against qitnios.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:57:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:57:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> References: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> I can't answer for sure but my guess would be that RMF felt that one could quit gebrochs for a sufficiently good reason and he felt that this was a good reason. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 20:17:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos References: Message-ID: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> R? AM: What about an ordinary old-fashioned film camera? Without a flash, there's nothing electrical about it. In fact, when one presses the shutter, nothing at all happens except that some chemical reactions occur in the film. Even after Shabbos, there is no visible change to the film, until after it has undergone some specific chemical treatment. Yet I've never seen a shomer shabbos person use such a camera on Shabbos, nor have I ever hear it suggested that it might only be d'rabanan. ------------------ Old MYG: That?s a great question, I think, about the film camera. I agree that it makes sense that it should be only a d?rabanan, except for Polaroid. And the d?rabanan may well be that since its entire purpose is to be in service to that Kesivah, it?s a Kli She?melachto L?issur, and therefore muktzah. But if that?s so, then the heteirim of muktzah would therefore apply, like tiltul min hatzad, and shvus d?shvus, l?tzorech gufo, and so on? After reading through it, I still don?t see any reason to prohibit it besides for Muktzah? Rabbi Bleich at this link (http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%203/Survey%20of%20Recent.pdf) quotes R? SZA that it?s ?mistaver? that taking a film photo is assur m?drabanan. Rabbi Bleich himself is not so impressed with that argument. ----------------------------- New MYG: I thought of another issur ? taking a photo with a film camera is Hachanah, because you?re only taking it for the result that you will get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d?oraysa. KT and CKVS, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:50:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:41:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the harsh attack. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:32:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:32:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> References: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160421193255.GA9816@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:17:10PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I thought of another issur -- taking a photo with a film camera is : Hachanah, because you're only taking it for the result that you will : get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d'oraysa. Return back to nidon didan (from the subject line)... A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the same reasoning would apply. But many other such devices can be used as a digital watch on Shabbos. So carrying it around -- even if you want the step tracking -- is not ONLY for the tracking. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:50:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:50:56PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to : make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not : a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. Actually, for RMF in particular, I find that hard to imagine. The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they were in error, he does advocate a more limited form -- cooking dishes from boiled matzah because the result may be confused with recipes that produce chameitz. The Keneses haGedolah (17th cent) confirms the Raavan's fears with a story of it actually happening. Someone made fish "breaded" with matzah meal, and the neighbor mistakenly learned from it that it was okay to fry fish in actual flour. Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after the Besh"t -- there are stories about the Baal Shem Tov eating keneidelach on Pesach, the Magid of Mezritch did not eat gebrochts. The SA haRav (discussed here annually) says that the change was due to a change in how we make matzah. This is the same generation in which kneading time was counted toward the mil, and therefore the whole process got more rushed. Until then, the chance of umixed flour remaining on/in the dough was unrealistic. I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thing cracker matzos; it would only apply to the Rama's only less than a tefach matzah. So here you have two people writing at close to the same time, one explaing why the minhag recently started, the other assuming the minhag is old and no longer applicable to the current umdena. But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer applicable. 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 Thu Apr 21 13:04:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:04:14 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: between gebroks and kitniyos, with our modern eye could we say one is more justified or were both products of the time. eg gebroks was invented in altererebe's time as a reaction to the nexus of thick matzos with incompetent bakers. kitniyos a reaction to legume-flour nexus . today , almost all matzos are either mechanized or learnedly baked; and only thin matzos made in ashkenazi land [unless you order softmatza.com]. and though legume flours like chickpea are extant, the communities that primarily use them never accepted this new minhag. it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them off... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 19:50:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on > Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal > Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. > I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the > pot even for use the following year ! Last week, in the thread "Ta'am kitniyos", I wrote that Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this, yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. So I will now rephrase the question that I had asked there: RET referred here to "seforim". Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this question in writing, and gives his reasoning. (My wild guess is that if such a source can be found, it is less likely to be in the context of baby food, and more likely to be in the context of an Ashkenazi who was invited to eat at a Sephardi home on Pesach.) Anyone know of such seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 13:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:50:07 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2016 5:50 AM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they > were in error, he does advocate a more limited form ... > Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after > the Besh"t... The SA haRav... > I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. > Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that > gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thin cracker matzos... > But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world > used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which > case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer > applicable. I don't see how any of these considerations suggest that Gebrochts is a Minhag that requires Hatarah. In fact I think it more than likely they reflect otherwise. The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are hardly substantial. And if there is any substance to the reason being related to the change in the way Matza is made, well then being so late, it can hardly be considered a binding Minhag. And one opinion is not adequate to propel activity to the point of being a binding Minhag, especially when it is so poorly justified. BTW it is astonishing that Matza of 10mm thickness be considered edible when baked to the point of being hard. You would need a hammer and cold chisel to break it. It makes no sense. Such Matza would only be edible if it was baked soft. Re the ShTeshuvah, he limits the problem to soft Matza, which is GRATED on a RibAysen (and explains that the problem no longer exists due to changes to the Matza used for making meal being baked hard and describe CRUSHING it) so it must have been soft. Soft Matza that is whole can be easily evaluated to determine if it is fully baked. Once it is grated however, that becomes impossible. The problem is compounded when you remember that probably the most important quality sought by the balabusta is that it be as white as possible so the risk of being under baked is all the greater. There was not ever a concern that flour remained in the Matza and that might become Chamets. But even if it did it can not become Chamets since it has been heated. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 09:11:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160422161136.GA4937@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:04:14PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them : off... An earlier question... Given our lack of minhag hamaqom, do we want to cast minhag avos off? What ties us to community if we're not connecting "laterally" to our contemporaries if not our connection to the past? Pesach is so experiential and so nostalgia driven, perhaps we should harbor / develop enough attachment to minhag avos (mimeticism) for that alone to motivate keeping qitniyos. :-)|,|ii! (And a special :-)|,ii to any Granikim out there!) -Micha PS: Yes, I do appreciate the irony that in a post about preserving minhag avos, I do a "shout out" to those who use 2 matzos at their seder. Even though most of them are doing so in a choice of textualism over mimeticism. -- 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 Fri Apr 22 09:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 06:50:07AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are : hardly substantial. The stories about the Besht are that he DID eat gebrochts. This isin contrast to the SA haRav who was firmly against. And the SA haRav (shu"T #6 in the bac of vol 6) IS substantial. See last year's BTW, while I fint this hard to accept as RMF's pesaq, R Eli Turkel told us last year that RSZA does hold as per the story about RMF: > In Halichos Shlomo (p90) it states explicitly that one can change his > custom and eat gebrochs after hatart nedarim. However, this should be done > only if there is a good reason (tzorach chashuv) for the change. Thus, for > a chatan he would allow the hatarat nedarim if keeping bebrochs would cause > family difficulties. And R Yisrael Herczeg wrote: > ... I just looked over the notes of the droshoh Rav Yitzchok > Mordechai HaKohen Rubin gave last Shabbos. He said that Rav Elyashiv > allowed for hataras neder on gebrochts. He also mentioned that Rav Chaim > Kanyevski said that the Steipler was matir neder on gebrochts for someone > who had difficulty eating matzah unless it was softened with liquid. He > added that Rav Chaim Greineman said that the Chazon Ish told him that the > Steipler's heter was invalid. And yet in his own life: > I asked Rav Elyashiv z"l if I could be matir neder on gebrokts and he told > me I could not. >From R/Prof Y Levine: > A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud > of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in > the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating > gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar > Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: > The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one > who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to > eating Gebrokts. > It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may > rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. > Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when > Matzohs were thick Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST that the minhag refers to a kind of matzah most of you do not eat. I have a few lb from the Syrian community in Flatbush, in addition to the usual. So if I had the minhag of nisht gebrochts, RYSE might still have told me to limit my hataras nedarim and continue not eating Syrian-style matzos with liquids. IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for reasons similar to the RYSE report. :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 14:11:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding hachanah, R' Micha Berger wrote: > A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the > same reasoning would apply. True, but hachana is a problem only if specific actions are taken to do that preparation. For example, washing one's hands over a sink full of dirty dishes is okay, even if one likes the idea that the dishes will get wet, provided that he'd be washing his hands there anyway, even if the sink was empty. So too for the Fitbit, which is already attached to whatever, and one is not doing any specific action for the Fitbit. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 24 04:00:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:00:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says > he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the > minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST ... > IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my > opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. > And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for > reasons similar to the RYSE report. May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. The closest true argument was documented by the ShTeshuvah who clearly related the problem to the type of Matza baked to be used for Gebrochts - it was at risk of not being properly baked [presumably because they were trying to keep it as white a possible] and being Chamets in the first place - it actually had nothing to do with the Matza Meal becoming wet. And that problem was solved by modifying the Matza baked for meal to be baked hard. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 15:27:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim Message-ID: In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: shabasos limnucha moadim l'simcha chagim uzmanim l'sason I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are, especially as opposed to the other three. But what precisely distinguishes the other three from each other? My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they the same in regards to Sason? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 12:58:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:58:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> An Areivim exchange... On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08pm IDT, R `Eli Turkel wrote: > what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:31pm +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes : from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. ... Doesn't this just beg the question? I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 2nd day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 18:22:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:22:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Areivim, Lisa Liel wrote: >> On Areivim R `Eli Turkel wrote: >>> what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts >> According to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. > I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah > of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw > from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? Who says he *did* associate lions with melucha? The pesukim don't make such an association. Unkelus does make that connection, translating "gur aryeh Yehudah" as a prophecy that royalty will come to Yehudah, but even there Rashi explains that this means that a young David will become a mighty king, just as a lion cub becomes a mighty beast. So the lions there are not really a symbol of royalty but of might; and Unkelus's treatment of the rest of the pasuk seems to confirm that. But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. -- 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 Apr 27 00:50:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:50:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> The best source is RYZA halichot shlomo volume on moadim - Pesach page 350 (shin-mem) He pasjens that (like this year) one can cook kitniyot on friday for shabbat assuming there are people in the neighborhood who eat kitniyot (ie sefardim) and on shabbat one can eat foods that has in them chametz derabban. One should be machmir only on chametz deoraisa. The notes below go into detailed reasons. I didnt see anything about the dishes. but as mentioned he just casually says one can cook the kitniyot. Rav Rimon in his hagadah (ie the last few years) also allows cooking kitniyot for the last shabbat after pesach Though it isnt a sefer the email sent out of ROY's piskei halachot also allow cooking kitniyot on friday for shabbat for ashkenazim again using the reasoning that sefardim can eat the kitniyot on Pesach itself (he quotes the shut of RSZA minchat shlomo tenina end of siman 17). He paskens that it is preferable to use special pots -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 00:56:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:56:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RMF and gebrocha Message-ID: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebrochts According to Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik of Vitebsk, the custom originated with Dov Ber of Mezeritch .[2] (This appears, for example, in Shulchan Aruch HaRav , c. 1800.) In fact, the members of some nineteenth century Lithuanian Jewish communities deliberately ate gebrochts to demonstrate the permissibility of this practice.[*citation needed *] Both the Vilna Gaon [3] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ruled that there is no reason to avoid eating gebrochts. (no source given) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 05:03:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:03:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Changes in Shmoneh Esreh Message-ID: Yesterday, as I was davening mincha, I found myself working hard to keep my eyes in the siddur, lest I make one of the mistakes that I'd have to repeat Shmoneh Esreh for. It occurred to me that in the course of the year, there are many minor changes which are *not* m'akev the tefila, such as Anenu, Al Hanisim, and the constant choice between Sim Shalom and Shalom Rav. But it seems to me that only four of those are so critical that - depending on circumstances - they can be m'akev one's Shmoneh Esreh: Morid Hageshem or omitting it HaMelech Hakadosh vs. HaE-l Hakadosh Tal Umatar Yaaleh V'yavo The chidush that came to me suddenly is that of these four changes, *three* of them apply on Chol Hamoed Pesach. There are three parts of the tefilah that we must get right, because messing up *any* of those three requires us to repeat the Shmoneh Esreh from scratch. This seems to be unique. Is there another part of the year where even two difference changes are me'akev? In Eretz Yisrael, Tal Umatar begins only two weeks after Geshem, but in Chu"l, I don't think there's ever a situation where even two of those apply at the same time. Even on Aseres Y'mei Teshuva, which has six changes (Zachrenu, Mi Kamocha, HaMelech Hakadosh, HaMelech Hamishpat, U'chsov, B'sefer), only one of them is critical. I'm not sure if there is any special significance to all this. I just wanted to point it out in case it might help others pay more attention and not forget the changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 08:10:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:10:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73622773-BB32-4FA9-B6ED-CFF33EF6C253@optimum.net> RMGR: > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. > I would have thought just the reverse. If there?s a halachic foundation all it requires is a psak. When the behavior is extra-halachic we may require hataras nedarim. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 09:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:12:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:06:02AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) ... :> We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. :> (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO : This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually : once started a thread here called "What can't God do?". Some examples: : Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? : Can God lie? The Moreh discusses both points. 1- Omnipotence is really a statement that nothing lies beyond his Potency than insisting He posesses an infinite amount of power. 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless nonsense clauses. The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Why? It would be pure Tov, not Chesed. : Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. Thus the idea I labeled #1 above from the Moreh, and his via negativa. R' Moshe Taqu infamously takes the opposite approach -- it would be presumptuous to define G-d even to the extent of insisting that we must limit ourselves to defining what He Isn't. RMT therefore insists we must accept the descriptions in Tanakh uncritically. (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, one way or the other.) :> (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a :> prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil :> to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. : Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general : problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, : God, : have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods : may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. : So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God : really want that? Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congential birth defects and other such natural evils. This could be one element in a broader answer. And that was sort of my point... By ignoring the whole subject of theodicy, Dr Haslanger misses the main point she would need to refute. As an aside, a central part of RYBS's hashkafah is that much of free will is choosing between goods that are in dialecitcal tension. More often than a pure good vs evil choice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? the tragic which :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427170529.GB29457@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:41:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah wrote: : Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you : should also say something harsh to him : : This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the : harsh attack. Maybe it's true by definition. A rasha is someone who is beyond listening. And the child ready to hear the soft response isn't a rasha. I saw someone suggest haqheih here is meant in the sense of morbid craving, not blunting. As in Y-mi Shevi'is 4:6 (vilna 12a) "Amar Rabbi Avun: derekh haqeihus okhelin oso". And shinav -- in the sense of veshinantam. In which case, you have the pretty idea: Make him crave his studies. But it doesn't work. "Haqhei es shinav" is an idiom that is used elsewhere by Chazal, such as Sotah 49a (2x). (There is also "anavim qeihos" as unripe or sour grapes in Avos 4:20, but that may just be a third usage.) But since haqhei es shinav is an idiom, maybe the idiomatic meaning is far milder than a literal translation. Like "shut him up". (Edginess of my translation intentional, to relay the aggressiveness implied by the idiom.) :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:21:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:21:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> On 04/27/2016 12:12 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore > part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. > But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, > any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless > nonsense clauses. > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. CS Lewis agreed with the Rambam. See my .sig Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach bigvul". The purpose of creation, Chabad says, and of all our avodah, is to make Him a "dira batachtonim", which is a logical impossibility. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 13:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed : >create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", : and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach : bigvul".... Nowadays there are multiple logics. Some are just mathematical playthings, but many are used in the real world. (The two I somewhat know are fuzzy logic, used in many problems like thermostats, to represent predicates like "hot" which has varying degrees of truth; and quantum logic, used in subatomic physics.) Speaking of non-classical logics , I heard RYBS discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. Because RYBS's topic was how bein hashemashos is actually both days at once. This explains why an esrog used one day is assur BHS because it's the same day and then assur the next day because it was also BHS -- the start of that day. But the notion of noone special logic makes the Rambam's idea that logic is part of Truth and thus of His Essence much harder to support. You would have to go meta, and speak of the usability of various logics in general. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 14:46:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:46:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name>,<20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> > > Speaking of non-classical logics > , I heard RYBS > discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which > he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows > for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that > halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. ---------------------- I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law of the excluded middle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle Moadim lsimcha 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 Apr 27 18:35:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:35:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: I had asked: > Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many > publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that > kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. > But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this > question in writing, and gives his reasoning. Yes! "Medical Halachah for Everyone" [1980, Feldheim] by Abraham S. Abraham MD, page 82, gives a specific procedure for an Ashkenazi who is suffering from diarrhea and needs to eat rice on Pesach, and then writes: > Separate utensils must be used for cooking and eating such foods on Pesach. His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf Hachayim). Then, he discusses at length whether or not a (Ashkenazi) guest needs to worry if his (Sefardi) host used those keilim in the past 24 hours, and several related situations. HOWEVER -- I am shocked by how different this halacha appears in Dr Abraham's book, and in the sefer he cites. I concede that the Kaf Hachayim does cite several problems that the Ashkenazi should be concerned with, and I concede that Dr Abraham's procedure safeguards against them all. But it also conjures up additional problems that the Kaf Hachayim was NOT worried about. Some might say that I am being too hard on a "kitzur sefer" that tries to service the layman by packing a lot of information into a few pages. I say: On the contrary! His book could have been two words shorter if he had left out the words "and eating". If the kli rishon is okay after 24 hours, I would imagine that the kli sheni is okay even sooner. Oh - here's another thing: The Kaf Hachayim was talking about a *healthy* Ashkenazi who eats from Sefardi keilim. I think that if Dr Abraham is going to apply those halachos to an Ashkenazi *choleh*, maybe he should cite a posek on it. Caveat lector! Check the sources whenever you can! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:20:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > > > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. > > He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any > of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf > Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the beginning of the first volume? Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:29:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Old Audio Tapes Message-ID: <57581d198d4c45e5863bdf9e300d7dac@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Our shul is getting rid of a large number of old shiurim on audio cassettes and CD's. Does anyone know of any digitization projects that might be interested before they are disposed of? Kol Tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 09:26:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:26:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] I shall sing to Hashem for He is exalted above the arrogant Message-ID: <1461860967014.47103@stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/gmsnkks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 30 12:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:29:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Matzik l'rabim Message-ID: <5725078F.7070109@zahav.net.il> Rav Asher Weiss discusses a case in which a small number of graves are found in a place that is not designated to be a beit qevarot. This piece of land is slated for a large construction project, which would in all likelihood mean damaging the graves. He discusses various reasons for moving (or not moving) the graves. One of the ideas that he brings up is "matziq et harabim" (damage to the public). He concludes that this reason wouldn't apply here; the claim "matziq et harabim" can be used to permit moving graves only if the graves cause teumah to kohenim. Why would forcing kohenim to take a different path (possibly a very small detour) be sufficient reason to move graves but a major building project not? PS: For a variety of other reasons, RAW permitted moving the graves. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:24:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 19:24:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: in response to David Riceman's suggestion - extra-halachic behaviour is likely to require Hatarah whilst those that have a Halachic foundation require a Pesak consider this: if there is no Halachic foundation for a Minhag then it will never require Hatarah, it is an error. The custom to sniff snuff in Shule on Shabbos can never gain status of a Minhag that requires Hatarah if there is some Halachic foundation then notwithstanding it not being recognised as binding Halacha, if it is adopted as a custom it may well require Hatarah if one wishes to abandon the custom Therefore since we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation of there being a risk that wet Matzos may become Chamets, the Minhag of Gebrochts is no different to the Paroches being blue or maroon and suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 08:34:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 11:34:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: I have a question about an Old French word that appears in a Rashi. I hope that someone on the list is fairly fluent in French, or has access to such a person. But first, an introduction... It is not unusual for an English-speaker to refer to Rosh Hashana as the "New Year", or to Yom Kippur as the "Day of Atonement". These are legitimate translations, and it is clear to me that they are used in certain circles. In contrast, the name of Chanuka is generally not translated; it is transliterated or adapted into English as Chanukkah or Hanuka or something similar, but translations like "Festival of Dedication" (and "Festival of Lights", which isn't really a translation at all) are much rarer. But this post is not about those holidays; it is about the one we just completed. I have long thought that the English language was unique, in that we have a translation for the name Pesach, namely "Passover". I concede that although we might perceive of "Passover" as a basic word of simple English, it was actually coined by William Tyndale in the early 1500s, for the specific purpose of translating the root "pesach" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible#Legacy). Be that as it may, it *IS* an easily-understood term for any English-speaker, most especially in the contexts of Shmos 12:11-13: "They will eat the Passover offering... and I will pass over them..." and Shmos 12:27: ?It is the Passover offering, to G-d Who passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt..." I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the focus on the experiential story. But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:16:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:16:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 11:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 20:13:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> On 4/27/2016 7:09 PM, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: > I don't know on what basis the digests say that you need separate kelim > for kitniyos. The taam of kitniyos that is absorbed into the pot in > which it was cooked is automatically batel. I think it's just recommended > for a heker, so you'll remember not to eat kitniyos yourself, and not > really necessary at all. > And if you know before Pesach that you're going to cook kitniyos for > next Shabbos, you'll leave it out of the chometz cupboard. I read various guides about this Shabbat. To sum up the issues involved: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. 2) Does the eiruv tavshilin cover cooking kitniyot? Since you would be cooking the rice/beans when they are assur to you, maybe teh ET doesn't cover it. However according to Rav Shlomo Zalman, if one lives in a place in which there are Sefardim, the theoretical possibility that a Sefardi person would stop over is enough. 3) Checking the kitniyot: One has to check the kitniyot for chameitz. I personally bought Kitov rice that had been checked twice and only a third check was required. Why they didn't check it a third time, I don't know. 4) Anything cold (eg chummus) isn't a problem at all. 5) Addendum: This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issues. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:45:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 12:45:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Simon Montagu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < >> He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any >> of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf >> Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the > beginning of the first volume? > > Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two > possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera > Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is > the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! Hazon Ovadiah on the Haggada (note 8 on page 55 of the 5739 edition) brings some of the same sources, without so many rashei teivot: Shu"t Zera Emet helek 3 (helek Orah Hayyim siman 48) http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=742&st=&pgnum=122 Hukkat Hapesah siman 453 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7855&st=&pgnum=172 But as far as I can tell none of the sources are directly addressing the question of an Ashkenazi cooking kitniot in his own house, as opposed to being invited to a Sephardi. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 14:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 17:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: On Areivim, in the thread "kitniyot", R' Ben Waxman wrote: > It doesn't make sense to me that the only holiday in which > the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor has become so > divisive that people would consider not eating with family. My guess is that "the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor" is a reference to how the Korban Pesach must be eaten. I certainly can't argue with that, but there is much more to this story. The Pesach 5776 issue of YU's "Torah To-Go" has an article titled " Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach" (the url is too long; just google the title and you'll find it) by Rabbi Yona Reiss, who writes: > The late Belzer Rebbe (Rav Aharon Rokeach zt"l) brings a > different source for the custom of not eating in others' > homes on Pesach, noting that only with respect to Shavuot > and Sukkot does the Torah mention the notion of rejoicing > together with others (Devorim 16:11, 16:14), but not with > respect to Pesach. Therefore the scriptural implication > is that on Pesach there may be a basis for parties to > refrain from joining each other for their meals. BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 19:38:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:38:35 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> `On the matter of Gebrochts, R?MG Rabi wrote in Issue 43 > Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to > make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not > a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. > > RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on > the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. > and in Issue 44 > May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a > custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - > as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. Mori V?Rabbi R? Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to eat soft matzot. The Ramah quotes the minhag that the matzos should be thinner than an etzba ...the soft matzos are thinner just like what color you have on the poroches is not a minhag, it is a matter of taste. Not every little sneeze is considered a minhag. However, if a person descends from chassidishe families and they have a minhag not to eat gebrokts *unless someone should pasken for him that this is a minhag shtus or a minhag b'taus, it would not even help to make a Hatoras nidorim*. Hatoras nidorim for a minhag only works if it is a *personal* minhag. The baal ha'neder has to request from the beis din the ha'tora. *If an entire community has a minhag, you have to get the entire kehilla to be matir the neder. One member of the community cannot be matir the neder on his own*. Just like if a person decides that he does not want to wait six hours between milchig and fleishig, he cannot be matir the neder, *he* is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years ago when the matzohs were much thicker. The concept of dovor sh'bminyan, etc. that even if one lives in a generation when the reason for the takanah no longer applies, the takanah is still binding, only applied to takonos d'rabbonon and *does not apply to minhogim*. The Ramah in his teshuvos writes like this and rashi in the first perek in Beitza writes the same. If I am not mistaken, I think the very last teshuva in Achiezer volume 3 by r. chaim ozer writes the same.? I conclude that we should be much more careful before attempting to extrapolate from Poskim of the enormous stature of Mori V?Rabbi. Dr. Isaac Balbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 22:01:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:01:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Best, Meir G. Rabi On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah > wrote: > : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the > illustration > : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in > force > : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] > > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza > on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for > me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable > hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:28:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:28:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically. And after the kitniyos were cooked in it the issur is automatically batel; the taam of kitniyos in the walls is surely less than 50%! -- 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 Sun May 1 21:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5726D8FF.6020709@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 05:48 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this > way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is > especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. I believe it got started because on Pesach there are so many different standards that it's often difficult to be sure that this is the case. Even if the host has more chumros than the guest, they may be different ones, and there will be something the guest doesn't eat and the host does. Detailed inquiry about these matters may be embarrassing. If the guest is certain that the host's standards are as strict or stricter than his own in all matters, then AFAIK the minhag doesn't apply. -- 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 Mon May 2 03:42:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160502104240.GB10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:01:51PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza : > on Pesach.... :> no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Well it doesn't need to be. Topics drift. However, I would ask whether RHS would compare Ashkenazi matzah styles to fashion rather than minhag if he could not prove there was a time when Ashkenazim too used soft matzos. You were using his idea as an example of minhag requiring a halachic foundation, that the risk gebrochts avoids be a real one. I don't see that. (It would also do wonders to qitniyos if that question were admissible.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:48:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:38:35PM +1000, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Mori V'Rabbi R' Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) : "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to : eat soft matzot.... : he is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to : say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years : ago when the matzohs were much thicker...." Why quote RTG when the Pischei Teshuvah said it first? OTOH, in the same generation, the SA haRav says that gebrochts only makes sense *after* we started counting kneading time toward the 18 min. And as a pragmatic matter, they both were very likely part of the same change in matzah-making norms. (If you have less time to bake matzos now that kneading ate up some of the time, you need thinner matzos.) I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old could the minhag have been? And if so, could RTG's theory be correct even in our day? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:51:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:51:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 05:12:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:12:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I saw somewhere that ein veatlim issur lechatchila doesnt apply to minhagim. Question: can one cook gebrochs on the 7th day of Pesach for the 8th day (for those who dont eat gebrochs 7 days). This was particularly relevant this year when the 8th day was shabbat. --------------------------------- On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 04:52:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57273F64.2010405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:51 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. > > : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're > : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste > : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... > > To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing > something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior > reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. This should be obvious, because if it were not so then it would always be forbidden to cook kitniyos, or anything else that is batel berov, even in keilim designated for this. -- 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 Mon May 2 04:57:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572740B0.9050306@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:48 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's > theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not > causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because > the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- > their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is > no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old > could the minhag have been? It wasn't even a generational change. The Alter Rebbe says it was only "these last twenty years or more", i.e. within his own memory. -- 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 Mon May 2 07:02:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 10:02:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:12 AM 5/2/2016, R. Akiva Miller wrote: >BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a >question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have >legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 07:28:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 08:28:08 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Old French In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at May 2, 2016 03:12:46 am Message-ID: <14621956880.190dB.12358@m5.shachter> > I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to > have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According > to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in > French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be > transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than > Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when > they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on > an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the > focus on the experiential story. > But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After > explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes > (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in > ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for > Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." The French word for "step" is "pas". In Rashi's time the 's' was pronounced. That gives you the first two consonants of the p-s-x root. The third consonant is an aspirate which, although it never drops out in inflected forms like the h does, might still be considered dispensible by an aspirational (sorry, I couldn't resist) etymologist willing to cut corners. It is a bogus albeit tempting etymology, like the ones you see in Hirsch. > A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been > inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but > that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the > question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How > do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? > And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? I can't tell you how the French of Rashi's time referred to Pesax. There are no French translations of the Hebrew Scriptures dating to then. The French Jews probably said "Pesach". That's what Yiddish speakers say today and I have no reason to think that their ancestors did any differently. French Jews nowadays -- who speak, by and large, French, although there are some who speak Arabic among themselves -- also say "Pesach", usually. Sometimes they say "Paque" (circumflex accent on the 'a' deliberately omitted because the Avodah digest software chokes on it, which is unfortunate, because the circumflex, which always indicates a missing 's', would be highly informative if you could see it), which is the correct French word, but it is rare for them to do so. I don't like saying "Paque" because it is also the French word for "Easter" and thus evokes a disagreeable sense of linguistic imperialism, even though the imperialism is almost certainly operating in the other direction here, I would think -- taking a Hirschian risk here, but there are worse people to emulate -- that the French word for "Easter" obviously comes from p-s-x. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:26:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:26:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tenets of faith Message-ID: > (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R > Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes > that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT > actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, > one way or the other.) Raavad : Born : 1125, Narbonne, France Died : 1198, Vauvert, France R, Moshe ben Chasdai Taku: 1250-1290 CE So Raavad couldn't have referred to R Taku -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 08:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57276FE3.4040104@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 08:12 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. Why does it need to be hefsed merubeh. Mechiras chometz is 100% valid, and everyone is entitled to rely on it no matter how easy it would be not to. If people want to be machmir for themselves that's very nice but they have no right to expect other people to follow their crazy chumros, any more than they follow those of other people. > OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. > Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the > supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? It seems to me that this attitude rests on a fujndamental amhoratzus: the idea that chametz she'avar alav hapesach is an inherent issur, an issur cheftza, so that if you hold for some reason that mechiras chometz is somehow flawed then you must hold that to the same extent the food sold is tainted. But chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a kenas on the owner for deliberately or negligently transgressing Bal Yera'eh Uval Yimatzei. Therefore even if you don't wish to rely on mechiras chametz, and destroy all your own chametz rather than sell it, the shopkeeper is not obligated to share your crazy chumra, and when he sold his chametz you must admit that he did so beheter gamur. If so, he doesn't deserve a kenas, so his chametz remains permitted even to you. -- 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 Mon May 2 10:03:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:03:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X isn't good enough". Ben On 5/2/2016 2:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store > can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are > communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these > contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel > its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:35:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim Message-ID: R Isaac, Please provide the references for the Shut Ramah and the Rashi in the first Perek Beitza. As for the Achiezer, that quite clearly supports the assertion that ONLY if the practice of not being MeNaker the hind-quarters is associated with a Halacha can it have any sort of binding power. It is truly confounding to see some people asserting the views of various Rabbanim without ever finding it necessary to actually do more than tell a story or tell us that the Posek said "it" to a friend or "it" was heard directly. For example we just had someone quote RHS saying a Halacha from the Rama, which the Rama does NOT say - this seriously undermines the credibility. Neither should we accept the report that RHS Paskened that those who do not eat Gebrochts require a Pesak that it is a Shtus because Hatarah does not work since a community has followed this practice, and the entire kehilla requires Hatarah. That's like an entire Kehilla following the practice of using royal blue for the Paroches. Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation, is a Dovor ShaBeMinyan, is pretty close to fantasy. Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from stories and hearsay from Poskim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:53:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502165329.GE14957@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:29AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from : stories and hearsay from Poskim. Are you REALLY saying that RIB should not accept an answer he personally received from his own rebbe? Or that we shouldn't accept that he can quote that answer verbatum, albeit with a "(emphasis is mine)"? If that's not sufficient evidence of a person's position, no quote on the list works, and we might as well shut down. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 10:37:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:37:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502173731.GF14957@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:12:10PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can : sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that : don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? Don't buy all chameitz that has been sold, or all chameitz that was "sold" by a store than then proceeded to leave it on the shelves and sell individually over Pesach? The latter is the nearest I've seen in my experience to such communities. After all, it's more ready to conclude that the initial sale of all chameitz was a meaningless asmachta, and not a real sale than it is to conclude the storeowners were selling someone else's merchandise and stealing the profits. But if you mean that people aren't supposed to buy properly sold chameitz, yes that makes no sense -- the storeowner still suffers a hefsed merubah, just days later. In any case, I do not think we still hold that mechiras chameitz requires the hefsed to be merubah. OTOH, it's more than merely a "crazy chumerah", as Zev puts it. According to the Bach (OC 448 "ve'im") mechiras chameitz of the sort where nothing actually is moved to space the nakhri already owns was originally promulgated as a widespread practice specifically for "yayin saraf" dealers, and only because they can't move their full merchandise. (The actual mechanism is in the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6.) Resisting growth of a heter to include boxes we could just throw into the trunk of our car is quite different than "crazy chumerah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:24:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:24:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" mindset). Ben On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus > standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the > would-be guest"? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 01:03 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the > custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after > Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X > isn't good enough". 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how silly you think their reason. 2. As far as I'm concerned the "baked after Pesach" stickers are merely an indication that the product is fresh. -- 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 Mon May 2 12:21:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:21:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> <57279663.5050102@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727A8CE.4040308@zahav.net.il> From: Eli Turkel via Areivim > The following is probably mostly for Israel MO and based on observations > and not statistics > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article by > a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see below) may apply). The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev Shabbat: 1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). 2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza 3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is practiced). So what is the difference in this case? Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? On 5/2/2016 8:03 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how > silly you think their reason. Of course you can't. However, community leaders can decide what message to transmit. I heard Rav Amar state in the strongest terms that there is no benefit to buying chameitz products from a non-Jew (instead of from a Jew who sold his chameitz). He also discouraged looking for the "baked after Pesach" label. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:05:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:05:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! -- 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 Mon May 2 11:21:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279A8F.5020203@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 02:24 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus >> standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >> would-be guest"? > In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this > chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they > didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate > their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at > least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are > (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" > mindset). 1. There's a lot more to standards, especially on Pesach, than which hechsherim one trusts. You might trust more hechsherim than your relatives do, but not use some product from *any* hechsher that they do use, or have some practise at home that they don't. 2. If you are indeed sure that you are not more machmir than them, then the custom of not mixing would not apply in that specific case. The minhag is subject to the guest's discretion, not the host's; all it demands of the hosts is not to take offence. -- 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 Mon May 2 11:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 04:58:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R'MG Rabi has incorrectly assumed that I heard or similar, the words I QUOTED from Mori VRabbi Rav Hershel Schachter. As a rule when I write that it is a quote, it is a quote. I am an academic. In fact, it was an email directly to me verbatim, which I received after Pesach from Mori VRabbi. Again, it is wrong to make suppositions. I did not provide any name in my question to him as that is entirely irrelevant. Regarding your substantive question for the exact sources etc I will ask, however, he is a very busy person effectively also the lone Senior Posek for OU (has Rav Belsky a'h been replaced?) and RIETS as well as his daily shiurim at RIETS and being Rosh Yeshiva and Kollel etc and you will appreciate that his answer to the query may not be immediate. Dr Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 13:07:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:07:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727B36A.7000303@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 03:22 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > On May 3, 2016 4:05 AM, "Zev Sero" > wrote: >> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: >>> Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation >> The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! > Correct, it's predicated upon factually incorrect information However on being challenged he refused to back this claim up. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 14:41:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:41:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can > indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. Zvi Lampel (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) [The attached PDF was identical to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/51283 -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 15:43:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 00:43:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: RAM mentioned that: > last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining > the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and > explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on > Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an > expression of stepping." ... and asked: > How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 > years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? As you yourself wrote earlier in that post, the French call the holiday paques (with an accent circonflexe on the a, but that renders badly on Avodah). It is derived from the Latin, like the Spanish pascua, too. I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke of genius that serves its purpose well. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 22:27:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 01:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: <64eee8.a68b9f3.445990cc@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach >....Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. ... [--RAM] And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL >>>>>> You don't inspect the host's kitchen because you don't eat in his house! That's the point! Chassidim and others have this minhag of "not mishing" on Pesach --" not mixing" our meals with other families. This custom of not eating at other people's houses on Pesach has its source in this, precisely: the desire not to insult anyone, not to embarrass anyone and not to hurt anyone's feelings on this of all holidays, the one holiday when we are all more careful than usual about what we will and will not eat. The "unfriendly" chassidishe minhag has a very friendly corollary, at least in chutz la'aretz where we have two days of yom tov: On the last day of Pesach we /davka/ go out to eat or invite others to our homes and make a point of "mishing." If you don't have anyone over for a meal at least you go out visiting other people's homes in the afternoon, and make a point of eating something there. It's sort of like a sukka hop, you try to visit a few different homes and also host a few different people in your home. At least this was the minhag in my family growing up and among the people I knew in my youth. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 23:35:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >>Two bundles of goods >>may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. >>So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God >>really want that? [--RDR] Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such natural evils. Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Properly speaking "evil" only refers to something that has a moral dimension. The question of "Why does G-d allow evil?" has an obvious answer -- to allow scope for bechira, for free will. That doesn't fully answer the question, of course. We see many cases where He thwarts the nefarious plots of our enemies, which leaves us with aching questions in those cases when He seemingly stands by and does /not/ thwart their plots -- the Holocaust being the most wrenching example. There are a lot of answers but perhaps none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be called evil at all (unless you want to impute evil motives to the Borei c'v!). Rather, here the question is "Why is there suffering in the world?" This is a different question from the question of why does He allow evil people to commit evil deeds. Again there are many different answers, some of which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as well as Divine reasons we can't think of. "Evil" and "suffering" can overlap, as when evil people cause other people to suffer, but they are still two different categories. BTW the idea that a benevolent G-d "couldn't" or "wouldn't" do this or that is an arrogant and ignorant idea, the product of puny human minds. And compared to our Creator, even the most brilliant human mind is puny. Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I did ask Him to take them away. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 04:10:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: I wrote: > This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of > the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? > > Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of > the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? #1) In the article cited, much was made of an incident when Rava went to visit Rav Nachman, who was Rava's rebbe, and was thus presumably at least as strict as Rava. (See the article for more information, and for various ways of understanding that gemara.) #2) I, personally, am not very knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of this practice, such as who follows it, or to what extent they follow it. That's whay I can't answer your question by pointing to people who won't even eat in their parents' homes; I have no idea whether or not this practice really goes that far. HOWEVER, I do presume that the author of the article is familiar with these things, and near the beginning of the article, he writes: > perhaps the most intriguing of Pesach stringencies is the widespread > minhag not to eat anyone else's food during the Pesach holiday, even > if the other person keeps their chumros. It seems from this that Rabbi Reiss *is* aware of people who avoid eating other food, even when they do know that their standards have not been otherwise lessened. There can be many ways of knowing this, without "make[ing] an inspection of the host's kitchen and review[ing] all of the products he uses ... insulting to the host", such as when they are close family members, or friends, and/or the host actually invites the guest to examine his products and practices. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 06:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:43:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah Message-ID: The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon are factually correct? Those I have communicated with seem to be incapable or unwilling. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:20:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:43:08PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, : anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon : are factually correct? Which fact are you not sure of: 1- That until a couple of decades before the teshuvah people did not count kneading time toward the kedei hilukh mil, and then people (at least around Easter Europe) did? 2- That rushing the kneading because it now has to fit within the mil along with baking time would increase the chance that there was unkneaded flour on or in the matzah? 3- That the Baal haTanya is brighter than you, and should be second-guessed with care? Even if someone known to be brilliant makes a mistake, you know it's not likely to be a trivial one. 4- Or, the original topic.... That I would find it unlikely that RMF would consider a minhag endorsed by the SA haRav should be dropped without very strong motive? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:28:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:28:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products; e.g, my wife makes mayonnaise for Pesach, although I no longer churn butter, as he did -- yeridas hadoros): I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.. I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no alternative. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:40:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503144014.GA18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:43:39AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also : be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that : gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the : meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke : of genius that serves its purpose well. Much of what gets called "chassidishe Torah" is similar -- it's not a real answer to the question posed, but it is real Torah. Presented in a way that makes a roshem on a listener. As for etymologies, I think there is also a gray area. "Yarmulka" is a term in a number of Slavic languages for whatever cap the locals wore. But if no one had created the folk etymology of "yarei Malka", would the term have become as widespread or as long-lived as it did? Historically, the name Shneiur is from Signor or perhaps Spanish Sen~or, or most likely the original Latin "Senior", which means "Zaqein", with all the implications of sagicity. But I think more Shneiurs today are named for the shnei or of Shabbos licht. Especially since that's why R Aharon and Rn Rivqah Chanah Perel Kotler chose the name for their son, born Friday evening. (BTW, RSK was a dapper looking man in his Chevron days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Kotler#/media/File:Rabbi_Shneur_Kotler.jpg Found it while looking to confirm the story about when he was born.) OTOH, Marche-shvan vs "Mar Cheshvan" has halachic import, and one cannot let the folk etymology cause people to write the wrong thing on a gett; nor to forget that the month names were from galus Bavel, and not related to the Hebrew word "mar". But in general, folk etymologies too have causitive power. (It's just that in my last example, I think we need to resist it.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:09:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:09:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> References: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160503150952.GB18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:38AM -0400, Rn Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without : Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents : for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. : : But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects : and other such natural evils. : I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Yes, but fixing my misspeech doesn't change my point. To apply the correction: Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. : none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that : we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. Does that necessarily mean we cannot know His Goals either, or only how they play out in practice? IOW, perhaps we can conclude that HYashem wants a world of hatavah, including being meitiv us with the joy of being able to be meitivim ourselves, without knowing why that means He would choose providing Tov in one case and why He left us on our own in another. : The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be : called evil at all... True, but if we correct my language, then the question too needs correction: How is the existence of *suffering* consistent with the Existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent G-d? : which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of : the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as : well as Divine reasons we can't think of. Including free will. For all I know, Hashem lets certain diseases foster because He Wants to give us the opportunity to cure them. That does not address His Choice of victims, though. I suggested four answers to theodicy, keneged arba banim: The chakham doesn't really answer it, he instead asks "How does Hashem want me to respond?" The rasha gets yisurim as punishment. In the Haggadah we tell him that its not the tragedy that is leading him to rejecting G-d its his rejection of G-d that led him to the tragedy. The tam gets yisurim shel ahavah. He didn't do anything wrong, but he is shaken out of the rut that keeps him from trying to be a chakham. And the she'eino yodea' lish'ol gets the life he does because, well, there are times where the thing we want is a greater nisayon, than the situation we find tragic. And if we are not up to the challenge, if its a test that we couldn't pass, G-d doesn't make us face it. I say it better and with more backing at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pesach-5761-the-four-sons-confront-tragedy But my point in my earlier post wasn't whether or not theodicy is answeable, but that the issue of theodicy was simply ignored by the philosophy professor giving the online course I pointed to. Which, in turn, was why I thought that a translation of something R Sherky said to university students (repeated from Twitter) requires more examiunation of the original. To repeat (since I find this topic more useful than trying to answer tzadiq vera lo): : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? "Can't find"? This professor of philosophy missed a huge theological topic. My guess is that "lo nimtza" was translated overly literally and RYS was replying to questioned for which no answer exists. And yes, someone should be intellectually honest enough to give up his religion if it really were disproven. An impossible hypothetical (we know a Torah-follower's religion won't ever really be disproven, beyond minor misunderstood peratim); so not very meaningful, but not something it would shock me to hear a rav say. : Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. : But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, : a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, : and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I : really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained : from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I : did ask Him to take them away. I said something similar recently about "lir'os es atzmo ke'ilu hu yatza miMitzrayim" . I wrote about how the RBSO put into process even before I was born events that caused my lymphoma to be diagnosed while still in stage 1, BH and ba"h. A rare form of lymphoma that (as of 2010) had only afflicted two other people, both rescue workers who helped look for their comrade's remains in the weeks after 9/11. Here's just the post-script: To be intellectually honest: The story loses some of its impact if you think about Office Ryan and Firefighter Endicott's families, who lost their love ones specifically because they were determined to give other rescue workers' families the closure of being able to make a funeral. On 9/11 itself, for every story retold of someone who was spared being there because they were out doing some mitzvah is a story of someone who seems no less deserving who was killed in the attack. Every life has its own story. I cannot know G-d's calculus in my own, never mind in others'. But the mystery of tzadiq vera lo (why the righteous suffer) doesn't free me from feeling grateful for the good in my life (hakaras hatov) and feeling thankful to the ones -- or in this case the One -- who provide it (hoda'ah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503151406.GC18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:28:43PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which : had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products... : I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree : of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted : practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no : alternative. Which is the only way the minhag could be non-offensive. I am reminded of the rav who establishes a policy not to eat in any mispallel's home, so that no one is offended by their rabbi having to judge their home's kashrus as insufficient. Still, I think it would be elegant if people who have the minhag of misht zikh nisht adopt the minhag of Maimouna. We might not be able to eat together on Pesach, but let's all share the simchas Isru Chag! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 10:08:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160503170842.GD18204@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:46:56PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law : of the excluded middle. : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle However, not only does RYBS's discussion of bein hashemashos really rely on defying the law of contradiction by saying "both" rather than the excluded middle's "something in between", so does his invocation of "almanas isa" and "isa lashon safeiq hu" -- safeiq is a dough. For that matter, the same could be said of erev (although RYBS didn't) -- an irbuvia of day and night. So I think that RYBS actually meant that halakhah had no law of contradiction. Which may be a consequence of allowing middle values between yes and no, I haven't found it spelled out anywhere. BTW, the notion that a tenai needs to be said in both positive and negative is also relevant, as only saying "I promise to do X if Y" is insufficient if Y could be both true and false or somewhere between true and false -- in those cases, whether or not I commit to doing X is ambiguous. Eg "I promise to do X if the next person to enter the room is tall" would lead to a she'eilah if the person walking in is a 5'11" American man (where Google the average is 5'10"). "Tall" is a non-boolean predicate -- a person could be somewhat tall, and not just because it's a matter of opinion, but between there is a gray area about the bottom of the set. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:19:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 01:19:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I am seeking the facts that the Teshuvah employs to support a Halachic ruling that Gebrochts is Assur. so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - 1] until a couple of decades beforehand kneading time was not included in the kedei hilukh mil time 2] this reduced production time created a credible risk of flour remaining in the baked Matzah? I am nowhere near the lofty heights of the BaAl HaTanya. But I am commanded, as is all of BNY, to learn and question and as R Ch Voloshiner says [Paskens?] we are not permitted to accept a ruling or a Peshat if there are questions that remain unanswered. It seems that we are having a dispute about RMF arguing with a Minhag endorsed by the SA HaRav. I propose that since Gebrochts is without Halachic foundation, it does not require Hatarah. Others think this is impossible since the SH HaRav endorses Gebrochts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:55:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:55:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160503185522.GA28828@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:19:27AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 . (Same as when we had this same conversation 3 years ago.) Twenty years is mentioned on 476, the paragraph that beging "Ve'af" -- "...ad shemiqarov zeh esrim shanah o yotseir, nishpatah zehirus zu beYisrael qedoshim, lemaheir me'od me'od belishah..." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 20:12:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5728E9FB.8010609@zahav.net.il> A close friend told me that he his uncle (and family) would come to his father's home for seder (in Poland before the war), bring his own food and table cloth, and by doing this was considered to be meiqil. Ben On 5/3/2016 4:28 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on > Pesach, unless there was no alternative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 09:42:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jonathan Traum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> Message-ID: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> > Lisa Liel wrote: >>> According to >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >>> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's >> berakhah >> of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw >> from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? I can't say with any authority what was in Yaakov Avinu's thoughts there, but lion imagery in the ancient world certainly does seem to predate him. On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > ... > But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's > question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves > are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The king of the wild animals is the lion..." Jonathan Traum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:12:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah Message-ID: In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on the other. Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from joining together for a meal 2) RSZA always took simchat shabbat/yomtov into account in his piskei halacha. A rabbi who is machmir not to allow using a shabbat elevator may be forcing someone who lives on the 30th floor to spend every shabbat without a minyan and without any company and certainly without oneh shabbat. RSZA was an advocate of tzomet because he felt it important to help especially the disadvantaged. Thus, he felt it important to invent a wheelchair good for invalids that can be used on shabbat 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also important even when it relies on DNA evidence. This is just a sampling of many areas where some poskim try and be conservative while RMA insists that just blindly doing the old thing is not necessarily the conservative or macmir way. His favorite analogy is a group of people who live in the tropics and wear swimwear. Because of circumstances they move to a colder area. There now arises a dispute should they continue to wear swimwear because thats what their ancestors wore or do they change to warmer clothing. The change is also meant to be conservative: the ancestors wore clothing that matched the climate and so they should wear clothing that match the clothing. The reformists change clothing simply because they dont care what the ancestors wore -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 13:15:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 16:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> Message-ID: <572906F0.5020105@sero.name> On 05/03/2016 12:42 PM, Jonathan Traum via Avodah wrote: > On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> >But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's >> >question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves >> >are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? > ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The > king of the wild animals is the lion..." Yes, it does now. As the result of this discussion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 14:45:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:45:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <000801d1a585$16ecdbf0$44c693d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RET wrote > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article > by a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel And RBW replied: >RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see >below) may apply). >The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev >Shabbat: >1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). >2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza >3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. >Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. >Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is >practiced). So what is the difference in this case? >Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? Of course, this is just a reiteration of the discussion we had last year - here is my post. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n069.shtml#10 The positions cited here appear to be taken directly from the Rav Poelim. See the citation there regarding the issur of handling food on fast days. >Ben Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 06:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos Message-ID: RBen Waxman cited the following: "This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issue." Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 05:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:04:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] women cutting hair in the omer Message-ID: I just saw that ROY paskens that women are allowed to cut their cut during the sefirah. Does anyone know if this is widely accepted? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 14:43:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:43:42 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Avoid situations that embarrass In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline. A story that displays a slightly different perspective - the visitor who insisted on drinking his tea in the host's Succah when the host who was not enjoying the best of health was entertaining the guest in his house. The host accompanied his guest explaining to the now uncomfortable guest, I am exempt from the mitzvah of Succah but obligated in the mitzvah of Hachnossas Orchim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 17:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160505004747.GB22983@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:34:09PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The : Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish : Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside : world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to : others subunits (e.g. ethnic). I am curious to see that article, because I would have thought the causality was the reverse. The Rama knew of an Ashkenazi mesorah that had numerous differences with Sepharadi pesaq since well before the SA. It was on that basis thyat he was able to categorize the SA as "their" rulings. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 11th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 strict justice? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 04:50:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:50:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would > be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in > the universe at all. > > But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. > Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence not a real good at all. But suppose we leave the world of mussar, where my goal is to grow spiritually by becoming a better person, and improving the relationship between myself and Hashem. Instead, let's focus on getting more social. It's not that I want to improve myself, but that I want to do things that other people will benefit and get pleasure from. In a world where people are busy interacting, but the laws of nature prohibit Nazis, the problem is not that good doesn't *exist*. The problem is that good isn't recognized or appreciated. Everyone is always doing nice things to everyone else, so much so that the beneficiaries don't notice it. Not because they are ungrateful, but because they literally don't notice it -- they have nothing to compare it to. This is how the world runs. What else might one expect? And THAT's why there is "no real good in the universe at all." Ad caan, RMB's reisha. But this only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Evil -- or at least the potential for it -- is necessary so that we can appreciate the good. What about congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering? My first reaction is to give the same answer as above: No one will appreciate good health unless bad health is a possibility. And then I feel ashamed of my insensitivity, my hardheartedness, my callousness. How can I not cry for the babies struggling in pain, just so I can score some points in this discussion? But, truth be told, that insensitivity reared its head many paragraphs ago, when we first contemplated "a world without Nazis". Are the victims of "naturally caused suffering" entitled to more consideration than the victims of Nazi-caused suffering? I don't think so. My heart goes out to both of them, to all of them, and I feel guilty, wondering about where my heart is when I thank G-d for the good He has given me. I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 20:02:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 05:02:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> On 5/3/2016 8:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on > the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on > the other. > > Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) > > 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be > machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without > kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from > simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from > joining together for a meal. If the parents of a Sefardi son in law > can provide him with halaq meat 52 weeks out of a year, he can deal > with their rice issue one week a year. I know that I sound like a broken record but . . . We have a long history of chumrot in kashrut and a long history of dealing with them. Kintiyot can be dealth with, halachakly and culinarily, just like almost all of these issues. Having an in law with food allergies is going to present much more of a challenge to a host than having an in law who doesn't eat rice. > > > 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most > halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is > overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity > might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone > agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA > points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as > inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also > important even when it relies on DNA evidence. > For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:08:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:08:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: yom hazikaron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the importance of standing during the siren on yom hazikaron by Rav Stav (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=4174 on aveilut vs chol hamoed during sefira by Rav Cherlow (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=5629 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:20:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 18:20:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572B72D1.2030303@zahav.net.il> Rav Tawil was basing himself on a psak given by Rav Ovadia Yosef, tz"l, which is summarized here: http://halachayomit.co.il/he/Default.aspx?HalachaID=3938 KT Ben On 5/4/2016 3:26 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > ? ? ? Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet > repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, > even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would > seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. > ? > EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:15:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:15:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben _____________________________________________ IMHO DNA is a real Pandora's box which it seems that poskim are taking an approach that to an outsider might be viewed as pragmatic (vs intellectually mandated) by accepting it as a secondary sirgn but not primary so as to specifically not get into the parentage issue. What will happen when everyone's dna/genetic map is available feom a simple stick test? 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:24:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:24:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1255?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=96_=EE=F1=E5?= =?windows-1255?b?+OQg4fnh5fIg4Of4IPTx5w==?= Message-ID: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160505154013.GF22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:50:01AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change : anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics : categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind : to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. I am not in your target audience, as I am happy with my current answer and thus probably too closed minded on this question to be influenced, but... : RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he : free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then : whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not : the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence : not a real good at all... Not my intent. Let me explain what I was trying to say from a different direction. What makes free will possible? The fact that we can think about thinking. Bechira chofshi and being aware of one's own thoughts and feelings (or a subset of them) go hand-in-hand. When we think about and make decisions based on that metacognizent "inputs" we are able to change how we think and truly exercise BC. I think this underlize REED's concept of a nequdas habechirah. It is only at the "battlefront" between two warring desires/drives that BC comes into play because it is only there that the decision happens slow even to occur consciously. You might recall that when we discussed tza'ar baalei chaim (in at least 2 iterations), I suggested that while animals feel pain, they have no "I" about which they could think "I am in pain". Pain, but without a critical element that turns it into true suffering. I gave a neurological argument -- animals lack the part of prefrontal cortext we use to do metacognizance, so why assume they can? Maybe when it comes to animals, the Behaviorists are right. But I also made a hashkafic argument. If a thinking being could be aware of the thinking itself, and think about thinking, it would have free will. Since only people have BC, which in the opinion of many (including the Meshekh Chokhmah) is that very tzelem E-lokim, they can't be self-aware of their thought. Pain as a stimulus away from something, but not "Oy am I in pain!" of true suffering on a human level. So I was making a philosophical point about the goodness. Not that it lacks worth of purpose, but the ability to enjoy good and the ability to make decisions go hand-in-hand. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:48:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:48:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160505154808.GG22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:02:38AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be : declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth : it? Mamzeirus is not a good example for a general discussion of chumeros. Kivan denitma nitma. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that we are to ignore most sefeiqos -- safeiq mamzer in a yichus-ly kosher community, or a mamzer in a safeiq community. (See for a nice discussion.) I think it would be assur to check mamzeirus using DNA, except in those few cases where we otherwise are chosheish for the safeiq anyway, like a shetuqi or asufi. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim Message-ID: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> H/T Mosaic Magazine See : Bible Odyssey Who Were the Sadducees? by Michael L. Satlow ... The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq, the name of the high priest at the time of King David (1Kings 1:39). Later sources also link the Sadducees to the priesthood (for example, Acts 4:1). However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. In the uproar that ensued, a Sadducee convinced Hyrcanus to abandon the Pharisees for the Sadducees. Whether true or not, this story might point to the Sadducees' origin as a political party allied with the Hasmoneans. Josephus tantalizingly mentions that the Sadducees ascribe authority to Scripture, not to the ancestral traditions handed down by the Pharisees: ... I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion i a dichotomy. Also, what kind of news is in that the Chashmonaim were in league with the Tzeduqim? Regardless of Josephus's story, why wouldn'tthe family that held the power of both Kohein Gadol and Melekh want to deprecate any form of Judaism that would make them share power with the rabbinate? Can the more historically informed please comment if this post is a non-story (which finding it in Mosaic Magazine led me to doubt) or what the chiddush is here? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:55:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:55:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=E2=80=93_=D7=9E?= =?utf-8?b?16HXldeo15Qg15HXqdeR15XXoiDXkNeX16gg16TXodeX?= In-Reply-To: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> References: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <572B7B0D.3050906@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 10:24 AM, Lawrence Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see > http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e 1) Every Ashkenazi siddur says that in summer we say vesein brocho and (in places where it's customary) morid hatol, and in winter we say tal umotor and mashiv horuach. Since we are now saying the former, it is summer, and wishing each other a good summer is therefore appropriate. 2) There is no pressure on anyone to bake a shlissel challah. The blogger is engaging in a fantasy so he can rant about it. Rather, every year we are subjected to ranting from opponents of this custom who can't bear the thought that some people do have it. The blogger has his mesorah, and good on him for adhering to it, but it is irrelevant to the vast majority of us who do not share it. Those who don't have this particular custom of are free not to do it, and nobody will denounce them for it; but they must have the same respect for those who do it, whether because their ancestors did it as far back as anyone knows, or because they heard about it last week and decided it sounded like a nice thing to do. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 10:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:19:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572B80AB.3050808@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 12:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. He was not accused of being a mamzer but a chalal, because his mother had once been kidnapped and was thus unfit to be married a kohen. We don't need to go to Josephus for this story, it's a braisa in Kiddushin 66a. > I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually > led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion > is a dichotomy. The article makes the same point: "In antiquity, there was no neat division between politics and religion". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 12:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:41:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <520b4de4-831a-8f00-6b0d-1cd935504656@starways.net> On 5/5/2016 7:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > See : ... > by Michael L. Satlow ... > ... > The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the > Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term > Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq... The myth that the Tzedukim got their name from Tzadok the Kohen Gadol has zero basis to it. Except maybe the quote from Acts, which has no weight. The origin of the Tzedukim appears in Avot d'Rabbi Natan, where we find that the eponymous Tzadok was one of the talmidim of Antigonus Ish Socho. > However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not > as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus > mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high > priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer]... Also, despite Josephus's claims, the accusation wasn't that he was a mamzer; it was that he was a chalal. The article is a non-story. Lisa [To be fair without bothering to post a full reply for something off-topic: The original had a word I wasn't comfortable repeating on-list, starts with a "b", so I assumed the usual back-translation to the Hebrew. I have no idea what Josephus actually wrote, nor do I expect a Xian to bother explaining chalal rather than use a general term for what used to be called an "illegitimate" child. So I don't know if it's Josephus's claims that's off or a miscommunication caused by my trying to be overly frummy. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:53:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know how you can say that. Admittedly, the Creator apparently wanted a world in which there are both Nazis /and/ birth defects, since that's the world He created. But there is a HUGE difference between the two -- between the pain caused by evil people through their own free will, and the suffering that occurs as the result of disease and other natural causes. One thought experiment will illustrate the difference. Imagine a mother whose child dies as the result of a birth defect. Let's even say the child dies after a period of pain and suffering. Now imagine another mother whose child dies because a Nazi snatched the child from her arms and killed the child in some sadistic way, in front of the mother's eyes. Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:29:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 06:29:53 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? or within it? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:22:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:22:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when > there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. > Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF > Every case is judged on its own. I was just an eid to a get of the sort, where certain kullot in the berurei sheimot were accepted because it was such a kind of get lechumra. In other situations, we may be quicker to allow a kitvu uttenu for a civil marriage divorce. As I said, every case is judged on its own. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:42:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:42:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrot Message-ID: In light of the comments of Rabbi Folger and others let me restate my opinion of chumrot. There are several levels of chumrot and kulot 1) The chumrah is personal and doesn't affect anyone else - perfectly OK but one shouldn't gloat or look down on those who don't accept the chumra 2) At the other extreme are things like monetary manners where every chumra for one side is a kula for the other side 3) For things in between one has to compare the chumra to the "price" being paid So for kitniyot - the prohibition is relatively mild but OTOH doing without the specific kitniyot is not a major deal either (in most cases) I personally get annoyed at husbands that won't carry (or push the carriage) even with an eruv but the wife does everything. I am not sure how much the women really volunteer. In any case the hardship is relatively mild (again in most cases) The harder cases are where the prohibition is more severe but the effects are more severe Examples from before include shabbat problems that might prevent one from leaving home every shabbat and ruining on a long term basis oneg shabbat. As Rabbi Folger points out various cases of gittin. Also cases involving DNA or other forms of controversial evidence. The main point R Avraham was making is that rabbis who take a "conservative: stance are not always being machmir since the effect on others may be severe. At times the more innovative approach may be the real conservative way. i.e. it saves the principle of the halacha rather than just some formality which is no longer relevant. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 07:59:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:59:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah Message-ID: RET wrote: > 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt > that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out > that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when > they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects > many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. Actually, that simply doesn't reflect the most widespread position on civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 05:34:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:34:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula Message-ID: <> Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one can't accept it in many other cases -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:14:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:14:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of > divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the > key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. > Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single > case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to > avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a > proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. > -- > Arie Folger, >> > chumrot that don't have side effects are fine. As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 16:29:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Schlissel Challah Message-ID: <20160506232927.GA27784@aishdas.org> Since everyone has to have a schlissel chalah post... Really I think it is about sources of yeast right after Pesach. There was no starter dough, so people would use beer foam. Beer foam yeast is too acrive for good dough. Fortunately, iron slows down yeast action. A key is a small convenient piece of iron to throw into the mix. But it is common for minhagim to be born from inventing reasons for things people already do. In this case... It relates to the key of rain and finances, described in Taanis 2, one of the three (or two of the four) keys that Hashem never delegates. If so, it is a reminder just as the wheat comes in, and. in the lands Ashkenazim were living in too. (The fresh grass which becomes a milk abundance just on time for Shavuos and Wittesmontag.) A reminder from Whom the spring wealth comes. And to thank Him accordingly, rather than to take credit. If so, ironically (for the naysayers), the custom is all about how wealth comes directly from G-d, not via angels, spiritual mechanisms, or tricks. Do you have a problem with dipping an apple in honey and other such simanei milsa of Rosh haShanah? Those too are symbols. The problem isn't with schlissel chalah. If people observed the custom for the kinds of reasons listed in this post, there would be nothing to object to. The problem I have is that it seems to have caught on beyond the original community because of people having magical thinking, trying to get HQBH to give them their wealth through segulah instead of (rather as inspiration for) the hard and long work of earning reward for being a better Jew. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 13th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 necessary for a good relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 14:26:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 00:26:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? Message-ID: I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). Shavua Tov, Hodesh Tov! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 19:49:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572EA93A.7030509@sero.name> On 05/07/2016 05:26 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). I am looking at a block of Tenuva salted butter, which bears the mehadrin hechsher of Tenuva's own rabbi, R Weitman, and also the hechsherim of the OU and Chug Chasam Sofer. I assume Chug Chasam Sofer is a mehadrin-only hechsher. Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk. It's also available in 10g and 200g with the mehadrin hechsher, and also in 10g and 100g with the hechsher of Badatz Edah Hacharedit. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=581 Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=582 However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to have this problem. http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/salted-butter http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/butter -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 21:35:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 07:35:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages > with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk... > > Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and > only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk... > > However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to > have this problem.... Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 22:00:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 01:00:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> On 05/08/2016 12:35 AM, Simon Montagu wrote: > > Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? Well, I don't see how it can be a halachic issue, since they do sell it with the mehadrin hechsher in the USA, to consumers whose kashrut standards are presumably the same those of Israeli mehadrin consumers. Nor, given the size and internal diversity of the Israeli mehadrin market, and its overlap with the USA one, can it plausibly be attributed to a cultural difference. What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available in 100g packs, in either country. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 8 20:36:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 06:36:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> Message-ID: <87b8dde5-91ed-0b4e-3d8f-268d85c4c13f@starways.net> On 5/8/2016 8:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available > in 100g packs, in either country. > The idea of salted butter was originally to be able to sell the butter longer. If the butter has gone off (rancid) a little, salting it hides that. So a lot of people refuse to buy salted butter, figuring that if it's unsalted, they *know* whether it's good or not, and they can always salt it themselves if they want. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 04:36:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:36:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RavSharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< ... Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. >>> The difference that I see, is that in one case the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards Hashem, and in the second case, the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards both Hashem and the Nazi. But as I understand this conversation, we are discussing theodicy, which is the question of "How can a good God allow such a thing to happen?" And in that regard I see no difference between the two cases. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 10:37:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160509173704.GA27325@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 05:41:13PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger :> The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can :> indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. : : I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... : where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in : fact it implies the opposite Then why would you think tht was the reference? Pesach 30 is where he discusses zeh le'umas zeh, so mybe they're talking about the implied lack of a law of contradiction? (Ie that creation comes in paradoxical pairs.) YOu are asking for a source for something I have been repeating since before its appearance in Avodah vol 1, something I learne from R' Aryeh Kaplan. Sources, even my notebook from those days, are not at hand. But I'm working on it -- al titya'esh. Actually, I am on the hunt for where I saw the point in seifer haHigayon. The Ramchal defined higayon as a tool the seikhel was given. I am just looking for where I found it explicit that logic was created for people. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 15:52:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi writes: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface > which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." > > May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? > > Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour > WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the kneading specifically. Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:02:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160510010206.GA9905@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 6:52pm EDT, R Akiva Miller: : I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then : flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, : I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the : kneading specifically. : Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? : I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 2:55pm EDT, I wrote: > Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos > Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 > . -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57313304.90006@sero.name> On 05/09/2016 06:52 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Teshuvah #6, in the Shu"t at the back of volume 6. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=486 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=487 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 20:09:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:09:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: Many thanks to R' Zev Sero and R' Micha Berger for sending me links to the HebrewBooks.org edition, and at almost the same instant. R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a > little flour on their surface which is a consequence > of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." I responded: > I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in > the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. > If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the > general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the > kneading specifically. I now suspect that the situation was a bit different than I had imagined. I would like to suggest that the matzos described by the Alter Rebbe had plain flour through and through, as a result of the dough being dry and hard, and difficult to knead, exactly as described. But the Rebbe complained only about the flour on the outside, and I suspect that this is because it presents a bigger halachic problem than the flour on the inside. I first got this feeling in the paragraph "V'hinei eineinu", though I can't point to any specific words where he might have said this. But in the paragraph "V'af d'haMagen Avraham", he is machmir on one who crumbles his matza into the soup, but he is meikil for one who puts matza balls into the soup. What I translated as "matza balls" are, more precisely in his words, "ground matza that they make into rounds (agulim)", and the room for leniency is because it can be judged to be a ta'aroves. I'm going into some detail here, because he is NOT talking about crumbling some matza into a dry bowl, which would contain a mixture of matza meal and flour, and the flour would lose its identity to the matza meal before it ever got wet. No, that's not what he is talking about. He makes explicit reference to these balls which were made previously, and were added to the soup afterward, I am at a loss to explain the advantage of these matza balls over one who crumbles his matza directly into the soup. The only advantage I see is that one who crumbles the matza into his soup is making chometz personally, whereas in the other case the chometz was made in the kitchen when the matza balls were fashioned. (Footnote 45 there might be saying something similar.) Be that as it may, it leads me to a very wild guess that when the dough is not kneaded well, it will have flour on the inside, and although one might think that this flour is subject to chimutz, the truth is that there is some room for leniency because that flour is batel to the matza itself. However, this leniency applies only to the flour inside the matza, and not to the flour on the outer surface of the matza. Again, this paragraph is only a wild guess that I offer to the group. (On a side point, I'd like to ask about the modern "hard (kasheh)" dough that the Alter Rebbe described. Why was it hard? I can understand spending less time kneading it so that it can be rushed into the oven, but the Rebbe seems to feel that the consistency of the dough changed too. Why would anyone think that using less water is a good idea? Kneading a bread dough is hard work, and it seems like common sense to me that if we want to knead it well, you'd use *more* water, not less. Does extra water accelerate the chimutz, independently of the temperature of that water?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 03:50:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:50:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach?" The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz that was sold to a goy in Israel because none of the hechsherim (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one is checking that it is true. See for example http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X9_D8LFI5O8/UWEoF_JIlgI/AAAAAAAAAc4/XDKyPFsMN7Q/s1600/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%94+%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8+%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.jpg Some people rely on checking product codes which tells them when the product was made. However, this is not that useful. All it says is that the product was made after Pesach. However, every Chometz product has chometz ingredients in it (at least flour which is most probably chometz because it was washed) and the consumer has no way of knowing when the chometz ingredients were made and who owned over them over Pesach. For example even if you only buy cookies that were made after Pesach you have no idea what flour was used. It is very possible/probable that the flour used to make the cookies was chometz and was sold for Pesach. Som people only eat things that were made with flour that was fround after Pesach. However there a problem with this as well. Flour in Israel is very low in gluten and therefore won't rise well unless gluten is added. All bakeries add gluten to the flour in all baked goods. There is no gluten produced in Israel, it is all imported mostly from Germany, France, and China. Gluten by definition is chamtez gamur . Because it needs to be imported gluten must be SOLD to a Goy over Pessach; unless the bakeries want to close shop for a few weeks waiting for a new shipment. Since they start making bread literally a few hours after Pesach is over they must be using gluten that they sold to a goy. Therefore, even if the bread says baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach, the gluten was most definitely sold and therefore you are relying on the sale to a goy. In other words they are pulling the wool over your eyes. They say that it was baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach but conveniently leave out the bit about gluten that was sold. (source http://www.bhol.co.il/9196/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.html ) In short, this is a chumra that makes people feel frum but has no basis in halacha and is in fact not really possible to keep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 04:13:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:13:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Message-ID: R' Elazar Teitz wrote: "I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.." On the other hand there is a famous story (printed in the Brisker Haggada and in HaRav MiBrisk) about the Brisker Rav visiting R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach in Vilna in 1941. The Brisker Rav thought that the sugar in Vilna had Kitniyos mixed in and therefore did not use it on Pesach. However, when the Brisker Rav visited R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach, R' Chaim Ozer served him tea with sugar which the Brisker Rav accepted and drank. Afterwards, someone (his son?) asked him why did he drink the tea with the sugar if there was a chashash of kitniyos in the sugar? He answered that not eating kitniyos is a minhag but being mevaze a talmid chacham is an issur d'oraysa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 08:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:52:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573203A1.3050503@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz > that was sold to a goy in Israel//because none of the hechsherim > (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) > hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when > things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the > manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one > is checking that it is true. Since it's only a chumra, why not just trust the manufacturer? Most manufacturers are honest, and if you happen to come across one who isn't you haven't really lost anything. In any case, while there are of course those who look for the "baked after Pesach" label for kashrus reasons, I assume that *most* people who look for this label do so as a guarantee of freshness. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 12:20:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 22:20:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:35:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:35:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f382b3d9eba7690e3482efc18d4e958@aishdas.org> On 2016-05-10 5:31 pm, H Lampel wrote: > Any luck with this? > > Zvi > On 5/2/2016 5:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. > > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. > > Zvi Lampel > (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) The truth is, this machloqes is something I was repeating since R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l was alive. (I mention it in Avodah vol. 1.) And RAK's presentation on logic that made it to print (years before my NCSY days) does not mention the Ramchal's side. Well, it does mention Derekh Hashem 1:1:5 but in the context of one of the paradoxes he's trying to resolve, not about allowing for paradoxes. So I'm trying to dig up an old memory of his stated source. I was thinking of a few places in sefer haHigayon and Derekh Tevunos, which I am still looking for. The Ramchal describes higayon and tevunah as tools Hashem created for a sekhel to use. I thought it was the haqdamah, but since not... The Maharal's model of machloqesin (on Avos 5:17) allows for paradoxes to result when we try to map the supernal Emes to olam hazeh. This point is not THAT relevant, but it's about machloqesin (perhaps only a subset, see end of Be'er 7 which says not every machloqes is eilu va'eilu), and I am writing to the Baal haDynamics. Anyway, it's not really a statement about logic, any more than saying that two shadows of a 3D object can differ and yet both be real shadows. (BTW, the copy of Dynamics in the beis medrash at Yeshiva of Greater Washington is well-worn and due for replacement or rebinding. I was just in the neighborhood for Grandparents' Day at my grandchildren's school.) I did post on-list (to appear in the next digest) that the nearest _pesach _30 gets to denying logic is that "zeh le'umas zeh" denies the law of contradiction. Which doesn't mean Hashem is above logic; it could just mean Hashem's logic isn't the classical one. Which I pointed out in a few halachic examples -- safeiq lashon isah hu appears to mean that a doubt is a coexistence of conflicting states, the need for a tenai to be in both positive and negative, etc... _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 Tue May 10 13:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:31:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57324535.7050501@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 03:20 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) They are discussing the buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), obviously, not the bison (Bison bison). Buffalo have been known in Europe and Asia for thousands of years, and have nothing to do with bison. Americans may be in the sloppy habit of calling bison "buffalo", but since neither the Mechaber nor the Rama were American this is irrelevant. Americans also have a fish they call "buffalo", but that's equally irrelevant. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:55:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:55:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Rav Tal on the state of Israel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160510235548.GA7880@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:10:45PM +0300, R Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim: > In these days of the yahrzeit of RAL there are many articles about > him. One article says that RAL objected strongly to the above > statements. He questions whether any rabbi has the "email address" > of hashem and knows what is helping or hindering the coming of Moshiach. His rebbe and FIL held a similar opinion. Which is why RYBS suggested to those talmidim who were going to say the Tefillah leShalom haMedinah that they might be able to get adding "shetehei" without arguments from the congregation May our Father who is in heaven bless Israel that it become the beginning of the flowering of our redemption, rather than asserting as a given that Israel is that beginning. R SY Alkalai and R ZH Kalisher, the first RZ (or religious proto-Zionist) voices, certainly did speak in terms of ge'ulah and qibbutz golios in the eschatological sense. However, R' Yitzcvhaq Reines, Mizrachi's founder, as well as R' Shmuel Mohilever were also non-messianic in their Zionism, and yet their Zionism was religious, not in addition to their religion. We've discussed in the past the fact that not all RZism is Messianic Zionism, and in fact amongst RZ gedolim, this opinion might not even have the majority. Depending, of course, on the fruitless exercise of defining who is a gadol. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:17:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:17:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to India. They did not initiate the discussion - The Be'ar Hagola tracks the source of that halacha to the Agur (Rabbi Yaakov Landau, 15th century) who was quoting Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron of 13th century Trani, Italy. In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water buffalo, an animal that is raised domestically as cattle in parts of Italy. It is from the milk of water buffalo that mozzarella cheese was originally made near Naples, Italy, and in southern Italy it is still used to make "authentic" mozzarella cheese. This would lead one to suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a kosher behamah (domesticated animal) see here for detals: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:38:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:38:21 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. ie from the halachic point of view is it a bigger problem having a memorial day in Nissan; or a simcha day in Iyar. and from a hashkafic view which is more problematic. the latter comes onto violation of 3 Oaths, idea of a 'secular' state in holy land etc . the former only that somehow holocaust is a prelude to a State, and that those who died resisting were somehow more valiant.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <57327651.5030802@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 04:17 PM, Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah wrote: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to > India. Not "likely". There's not even a hava amina otherwise. > In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water > buffalo Not just Italian but in pretty much every language, including English. > This would lead one to > suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, > were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a > kosher behamah (domesticated animal) Again, this is not a suspicion, it's a complete certainty, and I'm astonished that it even occurs to anyone to question it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:22:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 03:22:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0822d59a-9d49-b752-e005-a309ae78f4c0@starways.net> On 5/10/2016 11:38 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction > these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more > objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. Yom HaShoah is almost certainly more problematic. When the government of Israel asked the rabbis to make a Holocaust remembrance day, they were told that Tisha B'Av and Asara B'Tevet (Yom kiddush klal) covered it, and refused to create a separate day. The Knesset created Yom HaShoah themselves. It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious observances is likely to have a problem with it. Personally, I'm one of them, and while I won't walk down the sidewalk whistling on Yom HaShoah, I don't otherwise pay any attention to the day at all. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 23:56:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:56:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, *Bubalus bubalis*, native to > India. ... The question is then the halachic status of the American Bison - does it require kisui hadam and can one breed an american bison with cattle (beefalo) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 22:20:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 01:20:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re:, Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Micha Berger wrote: > Zvi Lampel wrote: > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... >: where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in >: fact it implies the opposite R. Micha responded: > Then why would you think that was the reference? My answer: Because you wrote so in reply to me previously: > Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:33:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Micha Berger" > Subject: Re: IS THE WORLD GOOD? ... >> ZL: can you direct me to where the Ramchal, too, says this?) > > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See > , where I > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and > Pischei Chokhmah 30. And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 03:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> References: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160511100415.GC11561@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:20:03AM -0400, H Lampel wrote: : > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I : > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See : > , where I : > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and : > Pischei Chokhmah 30. : And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without : citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Because there we were discussing something about logic and theology in general -- that it has no law of excluded middle. Or in English, the specific rule of paradoxes does not apply to G-d nor the shorashim of creation. And his version of the thesis of zeh le'umas zeh is in pesach 30. (R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) also uses zeh le'umas zeh and the idea that paradox is only prohibited bepo'al, not bemachashavah, to explain eilu va'eilu.) It is also sufficient for this conversation, as it shows that G-d can make a paradox manifest. However, I am still on the hunt for the source of the specific idea I was repeating from R' Aryeh Kaplan, that logic as a whole is a nivra rather than an aspect of Emes. (Work being what it has been the last week and a half, it's a very part time hunt.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 04:52:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asks: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) Google is wonderful. I entered "yoreh deah 28:4", and the third hit brought me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info about who they are) which says: > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) rules that one does not > perform kisuy hadam for a buffalo; this determines it to be a > beheimah. (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been meant. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 08:00:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:00:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160511150044.GE7880@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:52:18AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info : about who they are) which says: : : > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) ... : > (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, : > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years : > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... : Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been : meant. I think that is a list of other species for which the same logic would apply, and not other possible translations of buffalo. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 12:50:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:50:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 14:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5733A635.7040108@sero.name> On 05/11/2016 03:50 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile > "On the day that you are redeemed from the exile". Since lechol hade'os that has not yet happened (for instance, nobody has changed the davening to drop all the requests for the redemption, since it's already happened), it follows that hallel should *not* be said. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 23:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:52:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: A while back I did a shiur which touched on the efficacy of "Keil Maaleh's". I found one source which said to give tzedakah before making a keil maaleh rather than pledging to do so. This sounded extremely rational; deliver rather than promise. Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? 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 Thu May 12 00:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:44:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smartphone on shabbat Message-ID: *Zomet At The Crossroads* *> "Telegramma" - Speaking on a Smartphone on Shabbat */ The Zomet Institute At Zomet Institute we receive many requests on a wide range of subjects. One subject that keeps coming back is: When will you design a cellphone that can be used on Shabbat? This question comes from health and security personnel, who use a special telephone as part of their regular Shabbat routine, and who are looking for a way to use the new devices while keeping desecration of Shabbat to a minimum. We are happy to announce that in the last few weeks Zomet has finished the development of a smartphone "App" that uses a speaking device for Shabbat and where the keys are operated using the principle of "*gramma*" ? indirect action. Touching the screen merely changes the flow of an existing current, and therefore the smartphone can be used when there is a need for it. The " *Telegramma*" App is suitable for use only in cases of dire need, such as for matters related to health, security, or similar situations. The App is suitable for smartphones which operate on Android version 4 or higher, and it operates in conjunction with the Telegramma speaking device. For more details, contact us at www.zomet.org5-6]ssxhjxhhxnngntn/eng. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:31:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:31:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > observances is likely to have a problem with it. She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing shows that in the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:42:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:42:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic Message-ID: I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with the present discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: <<< Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? >>> Here's my guess: What will motivate one to donate beforehand? Emotions run high when the rav gives his Yizkor drasha (or at least, the emotions *ought* to run high). It's hard to get into that frame of mind before the event. This is not like other things where we are sure to prepare in advance, like preparing our matzos or our sukkah. If someone shows up at the Seder without matzos, the ramifications will insure that he will certainly remember next year. But if he arrives at Yizkor (or whenever) and forgot to donate beforehand, he'll simply promise to give after Yom Tov, and this b'dieved eventually became the standard. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57346F3E.5080102@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 06:42 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b > which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects > there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change > this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum > of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to > do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd > spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with > the present discussion That is what logicians say. See the Lewis quote in my .sig. But how do you know that it's true? Chassidus says that G-d *can* make A (which is greater than B, which is greater than C) less than C, if He wants to, because He created logic in the first place, and is not bound by it. Mekom ha'aron is the most famous example. Lewis would undoubtedly say that Chazal's description can't be true, because an object that takes up space can't simultaneously *not* take up any space. An object that has width *must* add to the width of the room in which it lies. But Chazal tell us it didn't. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 17:33:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:33:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." It has been noted that if the problem occurs because the dough is not or cannot be thoroughly kneaded, then flour would be on the inside as well. Reading the words of the ShA HaR leaves no room for any doubt - he was definitely not concerned about flour INSIDE the Matza, ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza. This is what he writes, "In truth there is no Halachic problem with Gebrochts, nevertheless those who are strict deserve a blessing. This stringency is not without reason and one who observes it is not acting in a bizarre manner but is in fact concerned to avoid a Torah prohibition [brings a number of authorities] since the flour may not have been thoroughly baked" [because flour that is baked is denatured and cannot ever become Chamets] "As can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded. Even though the flour INSIDE the Matza is a much more serious problem because it has been protected from the heat of the oven, AND IN OUR CASE THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION ...... " So - back to the Q - is this factually correct? It is clear that the ShAHa is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? and that if so, it is not baked and thereby denatured? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:35:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512153522.GD9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:42:50AM +0000, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic... Because we use logic to understand things. The chisaron is in "understand" not the possibility being discussed. Lemashal, Quantum Logic is very different than the logic we use to think with, and yet, it's still a logic with its own rules. Can you understand how electron X is spin-up or spin-down, and X is spin-left could be true, while the statement electron X is either spin-up and spin-left, or X is spin-down and spin-left might not? And yet, the difference is experimentally provable. Saying that Hashem can violate logic inherently means that some of His Actions are among the non-understandable things about Him. ... : An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic... Nu, so you agree with the Rambam. That "a round triangle" is a nonsense phrase, not describing something that can or cannot be done. Modern studies into logic, which has reveals that there is no one true logical system, have made me more skeptical. OTOH, if Hashem can defy logic, how would we ever be able to use logic to argue the point? Any proof of the position I attributed to the Ramchal and Zev attributes to Chassidus would require ruling out an adherance to logic rather than pro-atively arguing for its defiance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:22:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512152203.GC9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 06:31:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Under the current rules, Yom : Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time.... : While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted : from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which : is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the : Knesset or from the rabanim? The CR's office, in order to reduce chillul Shabbos. IIRC, for a while after the rule change, the RCA advised observing on 5 Iyyar in chu"l anyway, as American O observances wouldn't pose that kind of chilul Shabbos risk. They since changed policy. I suggested that someone may make peace with the fact by noting that having a country where the legal holidays are moved around in order to minimize chillul Shabbos is much of what one is saying Hallel for. But as one blogger put it... When you sit down to learn daf beis, you make a birkhas haTorah but not a siyum. There is what to celebrate in the existence of such a country, but the fact that they need to worry about chilul Shabbos by the masses shows Yom haAtzma'ut is a "birhas haTorah", not a siyum. Or as Rav Dovid Lifshitz put it... There is much to celebrate about YhA. But beyond atzma'ut, the nation needs to find the etzem. The job is only half-done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:08:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:08:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99d163da-fad0-a04f-8f8f-a9be47a769e7@starways.net> On 5/12/2016 1:31 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > > > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > > observances is likely to have a problem with it. > > She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know > how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, > Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a > quick glance at Wikipedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing > shows that in > the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) > > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has > resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) > on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the > change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? I don't know. I suspect the rabbanut, because they were the ones who established the holiday in the first place, but I don't know for certain. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:06:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:06:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah >> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile << -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: <19882.2235ddad.44661f9f@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) in Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 53 >> i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. << >>>> What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. But I will take the occasion to draw your attention to what I have written in the past about Yom Hashoah. This is from Cross-Currents, 2005. (I don't recommend wading through all the comments there though.) http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/05/06/yom-hashoah/ And in 2006, in the comments section to a post by Shira Schmidt [http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/05/04/the-controversy-over-holocaust-falle n-soldiers-terror-victims-memorials/], I wrote this about Yom Atzmaut: --quoting myself-- My mother has cousins ? an elderly couple, not religious ? who lost their only son in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Every year on Yom Hazikaron they cry anew, but they find the abrupt transition to Yom Atzmaut too jarring and cannot find it in themselves to celebrate. The Israeli government tried to set up a neat historical lesson that would take a few weeks each year and go in an orderly progression: 1. Galus Jews go like sheep to the slaughter ? Yom Hashoah 2. In Israel a new Jew is created, the proud Israeli soldier, who is brave and strong. He doesn?t die a helpless victim, he dies a hero, defending his homeland ? Yom Hazikaron 3. All the evil and sorrow of our past is now redeemed with the glorious new day, a proud and strong new young country, the State of Israel ? Yom haAtzmaut. Of course this simple story line has become darkened and more complex with the passage of time. Israel is no longer strong and new and young but weary and battle-scarred. Nowadays Yom Hashoah is commemorated with far more respect for the survivors than was the case in the early days, far more sorrow and far less arrogance and false pride. The Israeli Army is still looked at with pride but more young Israelis try to get out of serving ? a favorite ploy is to feign mental illness. The brave soldiers so lionized in the past are instead looked at today simply as sons and brothers. There is less glory and pride and more sorrow and grief, for all the young lives lost. Nevertheless, of all the institutions of the modern Israeli state, the army is the one most deserving of our respect and gratitude ? in my opinion. Finally, Yom Atzmaut is not looked at, either, the way it was in the past. If you read Yoram Hazony?s book *The Jewish State* ? or look at the soul-searching in the Mizrachi camp after the Gaza withdrawal ? you see that on both ends of the political spectrum, a weariness and wariness have set in, as the State has not lived up to expectations. The Left is in a post-Zionist phase where patriotism and flag-waving are passe and the alleged mistreatment of the Arabs overshadows all else. The Right has seen its messianic expectations dashed and realizes that the State is not yet the Redemption. My mother?s cousins who can?t find it in their hearts to celebrate Yom Atzmaut are not the only ones. Israel needs to rewrite its storyline. -- end of quote -- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 14:57:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:57:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:06pm RnTK wrote: : From: Eli Turkel via Avodah :> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. :> In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the :> Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi :> explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are :> redeemed at the end of the exile : Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. Nor on Chanukah? Besides, what R' Yochananan mishum R' Shim'on ben Yehotzadaq actually says there on that pasuq is that "laylah she'ein mequdash lachag, ein ta'un hallel". Which would also exclude Chanukah. >From context, I would say the gemara is asking why the existence of a holiday qorban in particular is not sufficient to justify Hallel on Pesach Sheini. So RY says, because the night is not muqdash to the qorban hachag. As for Rashi, he is commenting on the quoted pasuq. "The song will be for you -- on the day that you will be redeemed from the galus." "Like in the night which will be santified chag -- like the way you are acustomed to sing on the night which is sanctified chag. And you do not have a nightof chag to demand shirah except the nights of Pesachim, on their eating." Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 12:48:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:48:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512194844.GE9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:31AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The ShA HaRav writes : "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their : surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly : kneaded ...." Mimah-nafshakh the AR is speaing about it being a big enough risk to justify a minhag lehachmir, but not to the level of an issur. The AR writes "Be'emes, ki gam she'eino isur gamur bubarur midina, m"m hamachmir tavo alav berakhah." If it was normal for flour to be present on matzos, it would be a risk one would not be allowed to take. And if it was easy to see, no risk would be legitimate -- efshar levareir! We need to understand his empirical claims accordingly. Not a statement about something blatant that someone would notice without even a formal survey. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 19:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57351578.1080609@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 05:57 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which > Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel > for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before > establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. I'm pretty sure this does exclude any other night-time hallel. That, after all, is the gemara's point in quoting the pasuk in the first place -- to show that there is only one night on which hallel is said, and therefore it is not said on Pesach Sheni. I also don't see the implication that the future holiday's hallel will be said at night. All the pasuk seems to be saying is that there will be a new yomtov on which you will say hallel, as you do on the night that is sanctified for a chag. Yeshayahu is merely citing an example of an occasion when hallel is said, and could easily have cited a different one instead, but he would have had to be more specific, since there are many days on which hallel is said, and many on which it is not. By citing Pesach night as his example, he can get away with saying, essentially, "like on hallel night", which is not ambiguous because there is only one. From this the gemara learns that there is no hallel on Pesach Sheni. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:25:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:25:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is worse Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/search/?s=yom+haatzmaut&sort=1 1. the issue of date changing of YH is dealt with in rabbi grunstein's lecture 2. the issue of saying hallel at all , that some provocatively dismiss outright, is dealt with by rabbi zylberman, appropriately in his talk at the Aguda of Passaic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 23:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 06:20:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt Message-ID: While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day from the end of the British mandate to avoid chillul shabbat so yom haazmaut was always arranged to avoid chillul shabbat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 07:24:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May I presently buy Israeli carrots after the recent Shmita year? Message-ID: <1463149425226.74416@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. Israeli carrots currently being sold in the U.S. (May 2016) at this point can be assumed to no longer be peiros shevi'is and may be purchased lichatchila. In fact, purchasing Israeli products is commendable as it benefits the Israeli economy. However, if the carrots do not have a reliable kosher certification, one must separate the relevant tithes (Terumos and Ma'aseros). This year is the first year of the shemita cycle. This means that ma'aser sheini must be separated. The ma'aser sheini portion can be redeemed by transferring its kedusha (elevated status) to a coin. Even a nickel may be used, provided the ma'aser sheini portion (approximately 9% of the package of carrots) is worth more than a peruta, approximately 3 or 4 cents. For the procedure to separate Terumah and Maaser, see https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/separating-terumah-and-maaser/. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 08:52:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:52:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) 2 questions. 1. What is the heter to free the kids? (it's a torah prohibition to free them) 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha and kids thru her (eved ivri) He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:07:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:07:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] on a role for a 'secular' Israel Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/856920/rabbi-moshe-taragin/secular-zionism-for-religious-jews/#.VzVBhX-h6_c.mailto Very good explanation to MTA boys on how to look at the zionist enterprise and how to view it in the scope haskala, brit sinai vs moriah , kiddush hashem etc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:44:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:44:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: >>>What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. ----some people need to ask themselves why asking a halachic question provokes them. maybe the 'slyness' was pointing out that an issur can only be perceived as assur by those who believe said action is assur , not by those who feel act in question is muttar/mitzvah. clearly i couldn't ask why people who commemorate those two days don't realize that it's actually assur.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:18:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:18:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> Message-ID: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> On 05/13/2016 11:52 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer > who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce > children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular > Jews) > > 2 questions. > > 1. What is the heter to free the kids? > (it's a torah prohibition to free them) It's also prohibited to have relations with a shifcha, but Chazal permitted a mamzer to do so for this purpose. > 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he > did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them > (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? > parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos > 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha > and kids thru her (eved ivri) > He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship > with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) Why do you say that? On the contrary, "veyatz'ah ishto imo" means his wife goes in with him, i.e. lives with him at his owner's expense. And *only* a married eved ivri is allowed a shifcha. The simple and expected case is that he loves and gets along with *both* of his wives, and wants to stay with both. > The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Again, because she is his wife and they are his children. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:24:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:39 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted > from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which > is not the actual anniversary. > Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day... RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out on. That the Rabbanut moved that day forward or backward to avoid Chilul Shabbos was not significant. The day that Israel was declared a state is the day to say Hallel (and not to say Tachnun). One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:44:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:44:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160513184458.GC10043@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 06:24:08PM +0000, Harry Maryles wrote: : RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out : on... Although RAS was niftar before the telecom explosion that caused much of the RCA to shift position. As RGS recently wrote about R/Dr Aaron Levine of Flatbush : In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:54:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:54:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> Message-ID: <063701d1ad48$d0e0f7b0$72a2e710$@com> RZS writes ...How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? You are claiming a tremendous chidush l'halacha - that these are actually his kids. Do you have anyone who says this? It w appear not, bc they are not mityaches acharav (as a proof - we see that they are avodim, and not mamzers) mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 04:46:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 07:46:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> The justification for the shiur of a geris for kesmamim on clothing is that any spot that is a kegeris or less in area could be from a crushed parasite. So the kesem proves nothing. Also (Niddah 58b) points out that they couldn't make a gezeirah that would mean she would never be tahor leba'alah. I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? For comparison: Tosafos (58b, "ukidvarav") say that if she were infested with many ma'akhalos, one could be toleh even a larger kesem on that. We do not hold like Tosafos. The AhS (YD 190:18) pins that on these bugs being loners. They don't scamper in pairs. Multiple crushed lice would make multiple kesamim. Alternatively (se'if 27, in the name of the Rosh se'if 6) lo pelug chakhamim. Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. (A ma'akholes is apparently too common or too unnoticable to warrant needing to know if there was one around.) And the AhS (se'if 31) says that because pishpeshin can't be found where he lives, this din doesn't apply. This is based on Rashi ("R"N") saying "there are places where pishpeshin are found, and in those places..." Would people living in modern settings have to say the same about the ma'akholes? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:19:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:19:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which > case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, > pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've > unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than > lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the > ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. The bedbugs that I had seen in both the US and Israel are significantly larger than lice, and when filled with blood, hold a lot more. Furthermore, bed bugs have a very distinct odor (at least when there is a significant infestation) that many people can smell. -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:32:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 08:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57386C6F.6070906@sero.name> > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a > place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, > that this is a likely alternative explanation. Bedbugs are back, and can strike anywhere, and the first indication of their presence, long before one actually sees them, is the kesamim they leave behind. I wonder if "maacholes" actually means bedbug, but even if it doesn't the same principle applies. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 07:12:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:12:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live > in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice > and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. > > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah > didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and > therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came > from? I've always figured on the second of these two. My reasoning is based on the halachos of where the kesem was found. If we are going to make logical estimates "about where the kesem came from", then we shouldn't care about whether or not the cloth can be mekabel tumah. Who cares about the size of the cloth, or the color of the cloth, or the material of the cloth? But the system was set up such that if the cloth is not m'kabel tumah, then the kesem can't be tamay either. And so too for the size of the kesem. I had a lot of trouble understanding - and even accepting - the above, but when I realized that without hargasha everything becomes d'rabanan, it began to make sense. (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche to set it up however they wanted.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:25:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:25:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mazer Message-ID: <> There is a major discussion if one has a child who is a mamzer whether he has fulfilled the mtzvah of pru u-revu or not. Similarly is there a mitzva for a mamazer to marry a mamzerut to have children (see minchat chinuch, har tzvi, kovetz shiurim) BTW I saw an opinion that if a mamzer marries a shifcha and has a child he doesn't fulfil; pru u-revi but he does fulfill le-shevet yezarah see a discussion by RAL on pru urevu vs leshevet yetzirah (Hebrew) http://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D6%B6%D7%91%D6%B6%D7%AA-%D7%90 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:43:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Mordechai Cohen asked: <<< The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) >>> My understanding is that if a Jew has relations with a non-Jewess and the resulting children convert to Judaism, he DOES fulfill p'ru uv'vu through them. (Maybe that's only in the case of a non-Jewush man who converts together with his children? I'm not sure.) <<< He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha ... The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? >>> No, it's not the *posuk* who refers to the shifcha and children that way. The posuk is merely quoting the man. It is the man who referred to them that way, and given his love for them, I'd expect nothing less. One might argue that he wrong for feeling that love and/or for expressing it, but that's irrelevant: He does feel that way, and he did verbalize it, and the Torah is merely quoting him. My second answer is more technical. Hebrew has no word for wife. His words could just as easily be translated as "I love my woman", which I presume you'll concede to be accurate. As far as "my children", well, he just wasn't being very clear. He didn't mean "my halachic children", but merely "my genetic children". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:43:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 01:43:44 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? Message-ID: It seems R Micha has erred by not recognising that the risk is NOT about whether there is flour, of course there is flour - as the SAHaR says 'behold we see with our own eyes' that there is flour on the Matza the risk is whether the flour that is certainly there on many Matzos - has been toasted adequately to be denatured and prevented from becoming Chamets when exposed to water. Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57389966.5020706@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 10:12 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts > in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha > d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it > is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only > works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche > to set it up however they wanted.) This is not true. Mid'oraisa tzuras hapesach works in a reshus horabim de'oraisa. That one can't fix a r"hr simply by putting up four poles and four strings is mid'rabanan. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 11:45:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> From: M Cohen via Avodah R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) Mordechai cohen >>>>> There is no "shifcha" today. But a mamzer can marry a non-Jewish woman and have children with her, and later those children can convert to Judaism. I'm not saying he is halachically allowed to marry a non-Jewish woman but the fact is, if he does so, his children will not be mamzerim. Similarly a kohen who is a challal can avoid having children who are challalim by having children with a non-Jewish woman, and later they can convert and be kosher Jews. True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be cha llalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid the consequences of sin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 16:59:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:59:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 02:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such > eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was > tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid > the consequences of sin. That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no reason not to encourage him to do it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 01:32:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:32:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: On 5/16/2016 2:59 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one > we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually > forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no > reason not to encourage him to do it. Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 02:58:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 05:58:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516095809.GA31988@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:43:44AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the : facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour : is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. ... only because you're asking about the problem being prevalent enough for gebrochts to be assur. Whereas I am arguing that by context, we know the SAhR's "harbei" means prevalent enough to be worth a chumerah. And that kind of frequency would require a broad survey. Not sure if that qualifies as efshar levareir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 04:57:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:57:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten bam) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 06:18:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> R' Micha - thanks for the m"makom - still have to look it up. RMB also asked - Are you asking why a man might want to have children other than his chiyuv to do so? Ans. I am aware that a man can (and might want to) raise children not his own. Ie adoption. My question was that R Tarfon seems to imply that his eitza is more than just adopting and raising children not his own. I didn't (and still don't) understand why his eitza is better - they are not mityaches to him in any way. RZS's answer is not true. BTW, thanks to Reb Google, see article on this subject (though it does not extensively deal w/ my questions) [Posted as part of the thread or -micha] Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 10:41:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't > think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah Kamoha) seems to disagree. On 05/16/2016 07:57 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: >> "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not >> yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" > The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children > are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The > Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with > the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks > nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten > bam) The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) But the proof that your children by a nochris are nochrim like her is from the pasuk that says they are not your children. That pasuk doesn't *say* that they're nochrim, but the gemara deduces that since they have no Jewish parent what else could they be? The pasuk itself is not concerned with their status, since the avera it says they'll do is avoda zara, which is forbidden also to nochrim, and thus if they were your children this would be a matter of concern to you. (Your obligation of chinuch would surely apply to your non-Jewish children, if it were possible for you to have any; you wouldn't have to teach them not to eat treif or break shabbos, but surely you would have to teach them not to serve avoda zara, and thus it should upset you that their mother will teach them to serve it.) By saying that this is not something you should be upset about, the pasuk is telling you that they are not your children, and thus their idolatry and subsequent damnation is none of your business. On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > RZS answer is not true. And your proof is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 22:14:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: On Monday, May 16, 2016, Zev Sero wrote: > On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't >> think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. > Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar > Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. > The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt > http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah > Kamoha) seems to disagree. You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being your children. I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they are your children or not. Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 13:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <5bc7f3.13131e6f.446b89a5@aol.com> > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone.[--old TK] AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben ben1456 at zahav.net.il >>>>> But I think the son of a challal is a challal, and his son, and his son, forever. And the daughter of a challal cannot marry a kohen. So his granddaughter (son of his son), his great-granddaughter and so on, can never marry kohanim -- at least until so many generations have passed that no one remembers the family are challalim. Whereas if he has a son with a non-Jewish woman that son is not a challal. He's also not a Jew, but he can become one. And the daughter of a ger can marry a kohen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:13:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 23:13:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben On 5/15/2016 8:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:34:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:34:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A20C2.2050400@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 03:14 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. > The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with > their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, > and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's > property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to > exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, > but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that > of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) > > You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being > your children. Neither the pasuk nor the gemara says anything about their yichus. All it discusses is their status. The Pasuk says they belong to their mother's owner, therefore the gemara says they are avadim. There's no chain of logic involved here; the gemara is merely restating the pasuk. That is very unlike the gemara's next case, where the pasuk doesn't directly address the children in question at all, and its indirect statement is that they are not yours, from which the gemara infers that they must be nochrim. > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. > Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as > a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. 1) Who says a Jew can't be related to a non-Jew? The gemara's order of logic is *not* "they're nochrim, therefore they're not your children", but rather "they're not your children, therefore they're nochrim". 2) Avadim *are* Jews, so who says they can't be related to Jews? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:31:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 05:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from > other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:57:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516215742.GC21112@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:27:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: : shabasos limnucha : moadim l'simcha : chagim uzmanim l'sason : : I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are... : My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, : because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are : Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they : the same in regards to Sason? Apparently they are different aspects of the same thing. As in, "Chag haMatzos haZeh, zeman Cheiruseinu." There is a duality between zeman va'eis, as in a beris being be'ito uvizmano. Quoting what I wrote in v15n74: > ... RAKotler has a beautiful vort on the > difference. Beqitzur to the point of omitting the beauty: eis = a > point in the time sequence of a process. (RSRH would probably relate > "eis" to "ad".) Be'ito, when the baby is ready. Zeman = a point in > time according to a scedule. In this case, the morning of day 8 (or > day 9 when a safeiq Shabbos situation arises). I wrote a vort for MmD > on eis, zeman, qeitz, yamim, shanim, and Jewish time in general at > . In that vertl, I suegges that a qeitz is where the zeman and eis for the end coincide. Thus, "miqeitz shenasayim yamim" is when the predetermined number of years in jail were up AND when Yoseif was developmentally ready. Shanim and yamim. Circular time and linear time. A chag is a point in circular time, /ch-v-g/ related to /`-v-g/ to draw a circle. It's a sacred eis. But every chag coincides with a sacred zeman. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 23rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination Fax: (270) 514-1507 stifle others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 15:02:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:02:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516220214.GD21112@aishdas.org> I feil to see the problem. Nosein ta'am and bitul beshishim go hand-in-hand. RMF yses this argument in a letter to R' Pinechas Teitz to explain why whiskey can be made in sherry casks; since stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6, there is no problem of ta'am. You would obviously tased a mixture of 6 parts water to one part wine. Since qitniyos are batel berov, why would there be reason to say that a pot can becomes "peasdik"? (To quote a subject line from a month ago.) Are we afraid that the volume of the walls of the pot exceed the volume the pot holds? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 22:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:35:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> Message-ID: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No issur involved. 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? On 5/16/2016 11:31 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters > are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim > like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:34:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be :> declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? : Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one : can't accept it in many other cases A little more complicated, since discussing chumeros in mamzeirus raises an issue distinct to mamzeirus. "Kivan denitme'ah, nitme'ah" is a gezeiras hakasuv which makdes resolving mamzeirus in many cases beyond chumerah -- altogether needless. Being born of a father other than the husband does not make these people mamzeirim altogether. More than that, the gemara (Qiddushin 71a) continues telling you one SHOULD NOT reveal the families in which mamzeirus is nitme'ah. It is therefore consistent to refuse DNA testing for mamzeirus (in these cases), while believing that DNA testing is in principle halachically valid evidence. Part of a general reluctance to gather eviudence. However, I would think we could use DNA testing to help a shetuqi or asufi, to free him for the shadow of mamzeirus or at least allow him to marry vadai mamzeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 08:04:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:04:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517150411.GD8481@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 05:54:21PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote: : Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. : While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of : yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? Exactly. Better to use a DNA test to make a shetuqi or asufi either kosher yichus or a vadai mamzer than leaving him a shetuqi or asifu. So I assume in such cases, we should use the DNA test; either result is better than none. (And it's not a kivan shenitme'ah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 09:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 5/17/2016 8:35 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No > issur involved. But then their sons are challalim. > 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to > marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a > convert or divorcee)? Zona, with a zayin. I know one couple who, when they went to get married, were told by their rabbi that she was a virgin. That he didn't want to hear about what she'd done or not done. Granted, she wasn't marrying a kohen, but I guess there's a chazaka. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 12:54:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:54:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:06:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Areivim wrote: : Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people whose values contradict : the Torah is not a hillul hashem.... : As RZS has often said here, kiddush hashem does not mean "good PR" And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul hasheim because CH *does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive Peloni. Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. The gemara literally defines qiddush hasheim has good PR. To tweak that first quoted sentence: Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people because they hold values that contradict the Torah is not a chillul hasheim. That isn't you pushing them away from avodas Hashem, it's them a natural downward spiral. However, lowering that estaeem among people whose values contradict the Torah's for other reasons is NOT "sheyehei sheim shamayim mis'aheiv al yadekha." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:30:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > Peloni. Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a *kiddush* haShem. > Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct value system. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:24:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:24:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> Message-ID: <573B7DFB.1050504@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > Btw, thanks to reb google, see article on this subject (though it does not > extensively deal w my questions) > > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf Very thorough, but I see one enormous flaw -- the author takes it for granted that slavery is barred by dina demalchusa. This may be true in some countries, e.g. the UK, where the common law has held for centuries that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in, and thus that any slave who sets foot in England automatically becomes free. But it remains to be established that this is the case in all countries, particularly in the USA, where the 13th amendment only bans *involuntary* servitude. I am unaware of any law in the USA that would prevent a person from voluntarily becoming the property of another, and after _Lawrence_ and _Obergefell_ such laws, if they exist, may even be unconstitutional! If so, then the shifcha method could work here. There may well also be other countries where this is the case. And in Israel it might be possible to introduce legislation in the Knesset to explicitly legalise voluntary avdus, with appropriate safeguards to prevent it being abused. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:51:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 00:51:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't > include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we > make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the severity of the laws of taharot. He says that even though that reason no longer applies in our current circumstances, we can't nullify the gezerah of ketamim altogether. But we certainly don't need to extend it beyond the specifications of the original gezerah. So a ketem smaller than a k'gris does not make a woman niddah, even nowadays when such a stain cannot plausibly be attributed to a ma'akolet. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:47:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. : : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. Where does it say that? And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah by how clean some TC's frock is? : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation is not limited to those peers. : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive : >Peloni. : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a : *kiddush* haShem. ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off to Tzeduqim? Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. : : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct : value system. You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such limitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517220836.GA31726@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51:47AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. : Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the : reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the : severity of the laws of taharot... So the CS holds that kegeris is the limit of the gezeirah, and not just part of the general "you can be toleh kesamim on anything plausible". Pishpishin and the shiur of a keturmos (the size of a bean called a "lupine"?) *is* considered part of that general rule. To the extent that the Rambam doesn't give it special mention. Which brings me to the next question... How does the CS know that kegeris and blaming a ma'akholes is different in kind than the rest of the sugya? We could deduce from the Rambam, but that just shifts my question up some centuries. For example, the Yereim says that the shiur is based on the lice of your region, and not the same kegeris (about a nickle) of chazal. Of course (given the above), the CS does say the shiur is a geris, not tied to the size of engourged lice. And does that mean that the Yereim (and the mi'ut of contemporary posqim who hold like him) would say there is no shiur today? BTW, the PT, #12 says besheim the Raavad that there is no shiur if the kesem is black, since a ma'akheles stain would always be rad. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 05:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. > : > : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > > Where does it say that? It's completely obvious, and doesn't need saying. It simply can't be otherwise. > And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah > by how clean some TC's frock is? Apparently so. Otherwise what guide do you have? Why do you assume pagans esteem cleanliness, when for every one that does so there's probably another who esteems filth and despises cleanliness? > : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, > > : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > > The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation > is not limited to those peers. But non-peers may well think highly of him for it. Think of the "game" community that has formed online in the last 20 years, and what sort of traits they admire and despise in a person. A reputation that would embarass a t"ch's peers would be lionised in those circles. > : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > : >Peloni. > > : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and > : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a > : *kiddush* haShem. > > ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off > to Tzeduqim? Then it's a good bet that it's a kiddush haShem. > Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my > capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. Actually the gemara's lashon is may *his* Lord forgive him. But it's obviously being said by people who know what Hashem's standards are. > : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. > : > : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct > : value system. > > You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such > limitation. It *has* to have it, because we have voluminous *evidence* of what KH/CH is, and it's emphatically *not* that sheim shomayim should be beloved by those "who call bad good and good bad, who establish darkness as light and light as darkness, bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:57:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> Who is the audience to chilul hasheim in Yesodei haTorah 5:11? "Haberios". Ad sheyimtz'u HAKOL meqlsin oso, ve'ohavim oso, umis'avim lema'asav. Harei zeh qideish as hasheim... "Hakol" is all who? Not all the berios, since that's all he (repeatedly) describes as the observers? -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:35:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:35:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish Message-ID: A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels that there is no health problem can eat the two together -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:32:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:32:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: <> RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea of shifcha today is ridiculous -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:28:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:28:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 05:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:28:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735391/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/eating-fish-and-meat-together/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 04:10:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573C4DA9.9060307@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 05:28 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they >> are your children or not. > > Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> > > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Of course marriage is an occasion when one is *interested* in yichus, just as one is interested in health, character, and all kinds of other things; would you say that "health refers to marrriage, and might have nothing to do with topics like strength, diet, medical treatment, or life expectancy"?! -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 07:27:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:27:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> RBW asked.. L'maaseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a zona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? Ans. Yes, all BT girls are asked 'as discreetly as possible' if they are mutar to a cohen or not when in the shidduch parsha. (bc rov are not eligible) L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must look towards FFB shidduchim This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they bring it up otherwise) Some stats: The average age Americans lose their virginities is 17.1 for both men and women The CDC also reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females aged 20 to 24. That number drops below 5 percent aged 25 to 29 Statistically, if you didn't have sex in your teen years, you're in the minority. The interesting/disturbing problem is that many (rov?) BT cohens are not probably not cohens. (and actually w be mutar to a zona, mutar l'tamai l'masim, etc) If the BT cohens mother grew up post 1960s/70s/80s or so (and became BT post high school), it's probably a chazakah that she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. It's unlikely that the BT boy is willing to ask his mother if she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. (and even if she says she wasn't, is she be believed against the chazaka?) I personally heard from a major chareidi posek that for this reason a cohen s l'chatchila not go out w a BT cohens daughter, if the parents were married before they became frum and she was a teenager post 1960s/70s/80s or so (bc of the possibility that she is actually the daughter of a chalalah who was forbidden to marry her father) As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 09:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:28pm IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they :> are your children or not. : :> Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. : : Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage... I assume you mean: Yichus refers to a persons lineage WRT whom they and their descendents may marry. Do I understand correctly? : It might have nothing to do : with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between : parents and child. Is there a source for making such a chiluq, or are you just posing a hava amina for discusion. I was told lehalkhah ulemasseh that an adoptive child's honoring his parents is a qiyum of kavod harav, not kibud av va'eim. So for KAvA, some kind of genetic parentage is involved. At 12:32pm IDT, RET continued (on a second aspect of the discussion): : RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea : of shifcha today is ridiculous I would like to have the grapevine confirmed on this one. But in any case... When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and shevuyim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:02:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> Message-ID: <573CA023.104@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 10:27 AM, M Cohen wrote: > L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must > look towards FFB shidduchim > > This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. > > At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they > bring it up otherwise) But what about chalalos? An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married. Who keeps track of that, let alone after several generations? > As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens > are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Not just BTs, as I pointed out above. And indeed many poskim do say that this is why our cohanim only duchen on yomtov; since they have no yichus, and can't know whether they're really entitled to duchen, they should avoid doing so except when it would be blatantly obvious, and would thus cause a pegam on their family. (This is a based on a gemara that a safek cohen would collect terumah only once a year, to keep up his name.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573CA023.104@sero.name> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> <573CA023.104@sero.name> Message-ID: <0dcd01d1b128$28a623c0$79f26b40$@com> RZS wrote ..An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married.. Ans. But these FFB girls DO have a chezkas kashrus. My point was that todays female BTs, and male BTs descended from cohanim don't have that chazaka anymore Mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:01:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:01:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:35:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on : yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not : eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels : that there is no health problem can eat the two together In terms of acharonim, it's the Yad Efraim (#116) CS (shu"t #101) prohibiting and the MA (OC 173) permitting. The MA says nishtanah hateva. The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which we don't eat anymore. 2- The Rambam omits it as he does any other piece of medical advice that doesn't work. According to R' Avraham b haRambam, nishtanah hateva means the scientific theory has changed. WHch would make this idea a paralel to the MA's reasoning. The YE lists numerous posqim who prohibit, appealing to authority rather than giving a sevara But I think there is more to the story than included in this report. It's non-trivial to tell people -- especially Ashkenazim -- to follow the Rambam against both the SA (including the Rama) and commonly accepted practice. I am not questioning the conclusion, I just think we are missing critical pieces of the argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573CA7CB.5070500@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 12:51 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and > shevuyim? That's discussed at length in the article that was forwarded. Basically since avdus is a matter of dinei momonos it would seem to depend on dina demalchusa. But my question is on the metzius in the USA; I question the assumption that voluntary slavery is illegal here. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 11:36:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:36:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> References: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> <573BA37C.9070402@sero.name> <20160518174122.GE6953@aishdas.org> <573CAB65.1060509@sero.name> <2e7c1df5b9ef9931f5bc64b483eaeff8@aishdas.org> <573CAD8E.2030905@sero.name> <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160518183641.GA3694@aishdas.org> Two more examples of qiddush hasheim being about behavior in front of anyone. 1- Geneivas aku"m through circumvention is a lack of qiddush hasheim (R' Aqiva, BQ 113a) 2- Orechos Tzadiqim, sha'ar haEmes, calls getting the nations to say "Berikh E-lohehon diYhuda'i!" to be a qidush hasheim. The example is from Shimon ben Shetach requiring his talmidim to return a gem to a Yishmaeli when it was lifnim mishuras hadin. (TY BM 2:5, vilna 8a) (Recall this is pre-Islam, the Yishmaeli was aku"m.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 01:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:26:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or even leaves the family. One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive family and biology contributes nothing. Though not the topic of the shiur if the mother is a shifcha or a nonJew the father (who stays with the family) is entitled to all rights of a father including kibud Av independent of any halachot of yichus. He is not worse than an adoptive parent (my conclusion not discussed in the shiur) The only exception to this rule is sitting shiva. One is required to sit shiva for the biological father and may sit shiva for the adoptive father. When questioned he explained that not sitting shiva for a father even if he did nothing for the family might hint of mamzerut -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 21:32:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Adar Jacob via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:32:58 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 02:59:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 05:59:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160519095946.GD26914@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Adar Jacob wrote: : As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting : it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov : for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. This isn't an issue of rov. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that kivan shenitma, nitma -- a family in which the mamzeirus got forgotten must be left that way. One is *prohibited* against digging up lost claims of mamzeirus. I think of it in similar terms to how an afflicted person isn't a metzorah until the kohein says so. Here too, the biological parentage is the primary factor in determining mamzeirus, but apparently not the only one. We must also be aware of that parentage. And if hot, the person isn't halachically a mamzer and we wrong him by finding out his biological state and making him subject to the strictures. It is only a foundling (asufi) or someone who can't identify who his father is (shetuqi) who are *derabbanan* held under doubt. (De'oraisa, only a definite mamzer is assur.) Not cases of needing to dig up history of people who think they're kosher. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 26th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking Fax: (270) 514-1507 control just a way of abandoning one's self? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:15:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:15:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573DA051.10607@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 01:01 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including > > 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which > we don't eat anymore. Or perhaps we (i.e. middle Europeans) *do* eat this species but the Rambam (in Egypt) didn't and was unaware of it. I know the two Aris have identified it as a species that exists only in the Euphrates, and thus is eaten only in Turkey and Iraq, but that's not information the CS could have had. It could just as easily have been a species that also lives in the Danube, but not in the Nile or the Mediterranean. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:12:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:12:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Death Message-ID: <1463667145403.74543@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Vayikra 21:5 They shall not make a bald spot on their head, nor shall they shaveoff the corners of their beard and they shall not make a wound in their flesh. Heathenism, both ancient and modern, tends to associate religion with death. The kingdom of God begins only where man ends. Death and dying are the main manifestations of divinity. For, in the heathen view, the deity is a god of death, not of life; a god who kills and never revives, who sends death and its harbingers - sickness and poverty - so that men, mindful of his power and their own helplessness, should fear him. For this reason heathen temples stand beside graves, and the foremost place of heathen priests is beside a corpse. There, where the eyes are dimmed and the heart is broken, they find fertile soil for the dissemination of their religion. He who bears on his flesh a mark of death - a symbol of death's power to conquer all - and thus remains ever mindful of death, performs the religious act par excellence, and this especially befits a priest and his office. Not so are the priests in Judaism, because not so is the Jewish concept of God and not so is the Jewish religion. God, Who instructs the Kohein regarding his position in Israel, is a God of life. The most exalted manifestation of God is not in the power of death, which crushes strength and life. Rather, God reveals Himself in the liberating and vitalizing power of life, which elevates man to free will and eternal life. Judaism teaches us not how to die but how to live, so that even in life we may overcome death, an unfree existence, enslavement to physical things, and moral weakness. Judaism teaches us how to live every moment of earthly life as a moment of eternal life in the service of God; how thus to live every moment of a life marked by moral freedom, a life of thought and will, creativity and achievement, and also pleasure. This is the teaching to which God has dedicated His Sanctuary and for whose service He has consecrated the Kohanim, who teach the people the "basis and direction of life" __________________________________________________________________ Based on this may one conclude that the present day obsession with death that one finds in some Islamic circles is a reversion to heathenism? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:54:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:54:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In continuation of the topic of kibud av ve-em from yevamot 22b that there is ni issur to curse a wicked father rambam hilchot mamrim explains that this applies only the punishment the Tur disagrees and says that one must honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva others distinguish and say that one must honor a wicked father only while he is alive see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva R Zilberstein brings the Zecher Shlomo (Lech Lecha) and the Chida (Devash Le-phi 1:39) that therefore Avraham owed no honor to his father Terach once Terach handed him over to Nimrod. R Zilberstein further brought the Maharam Shick that one who is involved (metapel) in a mitzvah is the owner of the mitzvah and whoever works and establishes a mitzvah is the one to make the arrangements. Thus the one who actively rears the child is the "owner" of the child and gets to make the decisions and not the biological parent who is not around. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573DA738.2000201@sero.name> On 05/19/2016 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation > of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or > even leaves the family. > One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's > marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. > R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has > absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the > adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em > applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that > abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive > family and biology contributes nothing. Sorry, this is contrary to halacha. Kibbud av va'em is not connected to hakarat hatov; it's a duty that one owes to ones parents *regardless* of whether they did one good or bad. Even a mamzer owes his parents kibud, although they did him the worst evil. Even Avraham Avinu, whose father handed him over to be burned, owed him kibbud av. An adoptive "parent" is only owed hakarat hatov (and kevod rabbo if he taught him torah) and therefore is only owed it if he actually did good and not bad. An abusive adoptive parent is owed nothing. This is not subject to any machlokes, thus there is no room for different opinions. Someone who says otherwise is simply wrong. I found an answer to my speculation that a Jew's child by a shifcha might be considered his child. It's not so. An eved has no yichus at all, not even to his mother(!) let alone his father. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 06:37:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:37:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to > do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections > between parents and child RZS: > What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? > Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Yichus may of course have different meanings in different contexts. The first mishna in the fourth perek of Kiddushin, Asara Yuchasin, very strongly connects yichus to marriage. The mishna lists ten halachic categories of personal status (my translation of "yichus") , and then immediately details the connection of these statuses to the permissibility of marriage Indeed it is clear that according to this mishna, a *very fundamental implication* of yichus is whom can one marry halachically, Putting this more strongly it seems that the mishna is defining ten halachic "marriageability" categories (yuchasin), making marriageability a *defining characteristic* of yichus. This is most likely what RET had in mind. In the framework of this mishna, RZS' statement "What does yichus have to do with marriage?Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less." is untenable.Yichus defines whom you can marry. When the gemara states "bno min min hashifcha umin hanachrit u eino mityaches acharav" it is saying, as we know, that halachically the child of a male Jew and a female slave or a non-Jewish woman is not his child; there is no genealogical connection ("yichus") between them. This is the sense of yichus that RZS apparently favors, but is a meaning of yichus very different from that in the above cited mishna. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 03:02:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:02:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I am bringing in more detail the story told by R Zilberstein. He gives out notes before the shiur and so this is all in print if anyone is interested A man divorced his wife after a nasty settlement without leaving any mezonot for the wife or their daughter. Later the woman married again and had a new happy family and the new husband raised the daughter from the first marriage supplying all her needs while the biological father had no contact with his daughter A few days before the daughter's marriage the father shows up holding an invitation upset that the adoptive father is listed as the father of the kallah and the biological father isn't mentioned at all. He screamed is the husband of your mother really your father? Though he had no contact with his daughter he described the shame he had with his friends and demanded that they print a new invitation with himself listed as the father of the bride The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father of the bride. Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to have his name listed on the invitation. The daughter returned to her father with the psak of R Zilberstein and the father remarked that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also needs to participate in buying an apartment. R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the biological father is listed. He was not sure whether the language should be "be abuha" or "be nasa" . The first would be a lie since she didn't live with her father but the second language is used only for an orphaned bride. His preferred remedy was to leave that phrase out completely. Again anyone who wants to see the Hebrew original can contact me -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:12:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:12:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573F3781.9080405@sero.name> On 05/20/2016 06:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that > the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. In other words, her obligation of kibud av va'em is to her real father, not to the one who raised her, but this obligation doesn't include putting him on her wedding invitation, for the reason explained later. > Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her > up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the > dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father > of the bride. I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by the father, but not in this case). > Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to > have his name listed on the invitation. [...] the father remarked > that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter > returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz > they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also > needs to participate in buying an apartment. Again, the term "to be considered the father" makes no sense here; can money make someone a father or not a father?! If he's not the father how can any amount suddenly make him one, and why are they haggling over the amount? Rather the issue here was not at all whether he's the father. Of course he is. The issue here was who is the host who is making the wedding and inviting people to it. And that is the person who is paying, not just for the actual affair, but also the expenses that enable the affair to happen, i.e. the apartment, without which there would be no shidduch. It appears from this psak that if he is willing to pay this the bride and her adoptive father may not refuse! And that would be because he is after all the father, and thus has the *right* to host his daughter's wedding, if only he is willing to do so. > R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological > father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the > biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but > when he is alive the biological father is listed. I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! And the fact is that she is forbidden to his relatives, and *permitted* to her adoptive father's relatives. (In fact it used to be common for someone who raised an orphan to arrange a marrriage for him or her with one of his own children. I even know of a case nowadays where this happened.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:18:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:18:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Surely prevention of marriage with (forbidden) relatives is applicable whether the biological father is or is not alive? On 20 May 2016 at 11:02, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in > order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not > alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the > biological father is listed. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 13:00:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:00:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: see http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ and especially http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful for this is also greater. also http://www.lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] The children may be identified when called to the Torah and in formal documents as the son or daughter of those who raised them, and the normal restrictions of *yihud* (which generally allows unsupervised and close contact with only biological parents, siblings and children) is not applicable to adoptive families, whose members interact as a biological family would. This is far more than transporting halakhic forms (like not addressing one?s adoptive parents by their first names) to the adoptive family. It is an expression of a new halakhic reality, so to speak. obviously laws of mourning are different between a biological parent and an adoptive parent Rabbi Soloveitchik insisted that there is a *kiyyum* of the mitzvah of *avelut* even when there is no halakhic obligation to mourn the specific individual. He drew this conclusion from the ruling that ?Where there is a case of a deceased who has left no mourners to be com?forted, ten worthy men should assemble at his placeall seven days of the mourning period and the rest of the people should gather about them [to comfort them]. And if the ten cannot stay on a regular basis, others from the community may replace them.? It was for this reason that the Rav regularly advised children to mourn the adopted parents who had raised them. If there was no * hiyyuv *[obligation]* ha-mitzvah*, there was none-the-less a *kiyyum ha-mitzvah*. BTW a friend of mine told me that there is a psak of R Schacter that if the parent abused the child and it would be a great stress on the child to mourn for the parent then he is exempt from sitting shiva -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 11:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:20:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I found an extended article on how to fix a mazer (tihur mamzerim) from avnei hamakom volume 15 from Rav Oren Zwick As to marrying a shifcha he nrings that minchat yotzchak outlawed it because of dina demalchuta Rab Breish (Chelkat Yaakov) - in a series of letters between them disagrees. In fact it is suggested that in Israel marriage is conducted by the rabbinate and halachically they should be able to allow a shifcha. It is stressed that this is on condition that it be done officially-legally by the Israeli rabbinate. He also discusses other options and ends with a reference to Yevamot 68b and bet shmuel 2:18 in the name os sefer charedim that a mamzer can't live more than 12 months > I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the > original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is > inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by > the father, but not in this case). I am confused. I emphatically stated that anyone who wants to see the original to contact me and I would send it. Why suspect what is written when one can check it yourself The words that R Zilberstein uses are harei she - "avi hakallah" bnidan didan hu ha-abba ha-choreg Obviously the adoptive father is not the "real" father is considered like the real father and is the one who should be listed as the father in the invitation > I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the > father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! Be-kewtuba raui lichtov et shemo shel ha-av ha-amiti hedei she-lo tezei taut u-machshla be-nisue krovim. Umnam be-yetoma kotvim et shemo shel mi she-gidel otah aval ke=she-ha-abba chai yesh lichtov et shemo I again strongly suggest that anyone who wants to challenge my interepation of the psak look at the original and not guess based on his knowledge what 2 major poskim state. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 21:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] ============================================== My general take on this topic is that many halakhists bent over backwards to find solutions to the adoption problems mentioned (e.g. yichud). Perhaps it was due to the need for orphans to find homes or the human drive for childless couples to have families(especially when dealing with non-Jewish adoptions)? I never found much written about the meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times influenced the decisions. 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 Sun May 22 16:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 19:12:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah Message-ID: Pesachim 35a tells us that ?things which can come to chimutz, a person can fulfill his chiyuv of matza with them; this excludes those which come not to chimutz, but to sirchon.? This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: > Lo sochal alav chametz > Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos > Do not eat chametz with it > For seven days you will eat matzos Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. After all, if the pasuk had said, "Do not eat carrots; you must eat beef," would that lead us to conclude that carrots and beef have similar definitions? However, the truth is that the phrases don't *need* to save any logical connection. If Torah Sheb'al Peh says that this is how Torah Sheb'ksav chose to connect the definitions of chametz and matzah, it's just one of many similar cases. (I don't know whether this particular limud is called a "hekesh" or something else, but I hope my point is clear.) So I am not saying that the gemara was wrong for deriving these definitions from that pasuk. What I *AM* asking is why the gemara points to that pasuk, when there is a different pasuk it could have used instead. In my view, there is another pasuk that makes the very same point, but much more clearly, in a very pshat way. Why should we resort to a lomdishe juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: > Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos > Ki lo chametz > Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah > They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza > Because it did not become chametz > Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. How much clearer can it be, presuming that the Author wants a historical narrative, and not a legal text? If the word "ki - because" was missing, my argument would be much weaker, but it is *not* missing, and it is the cornerstone of my argument: It became matza *because* it did not become chametz. Chametz and matza are one and the same, differing only in that one is baked prior to chimutz (which prevents chimutz from happening), and the other does undergo chimutz. If dough does reach chimutz, getting baked later is irrelevant. Baking is relevant only to preventing chimutz, which is what creates matza: "They baked it into matza, because it did not become chametz." But I can't find anyone who explicitly connects Shemos 12:39 to the definitions of chametz and matza. Even if there is some weakness to this pasuk, and Devarim 16:3 is truly stronger, I would think that this would be mentioned in the gemara. Pesachim 35a should have said something like, "And R' Ploni retorted, Why do you cite Devarim, when we already have Shemos? But R' Almoni answers that Shemos is actually weaker because of..." Does anyone know of anything like this? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 00:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend 11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in techiyat hamettim. What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:40:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby Message-ID: The Gemara in Kiddushin (73b) has the following case. 4 women give birth to baby boys in the same house and one is the wife of a Cohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin, and one the wife of a mamzer. The Gemara states that the midwife is believed to say which is the son of the Cohen, which is the son of the Levi, etc. The Ran quoted by the Beis Yosef (Even Haezer Siman 4) states that this is a takana d'rabbanon that min hatorah the midwife is not believed (because it is a davar sheberva which requires 2 kosher witnesses). This brings up the some obvious questions: 1. What did they do before this takana? It is clear that men were not around during childbirth so how was there any yichus? 2. When was this takana made? 3. How could the Torah have such an impractical approach to these matters? There Torah was given to human beings to observe and for thousands of years women gave birth with no men present. 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:56:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: By coincidence a recent daf yomi (kiddushin 72b) discusses the future status of mamzerim. The following is a non-literal translation of an article by R Avihud Shwartz from yeshivat har etzion. Anyone who wishes to see the Hebrew can request me to forward the original. This is not a continuation of the previous discussion. The gemara says that R Yose says that in the future (le-atid le-vo) mamzerim and netinim will be tahor while R Meir disagrees. The gemara followed by Rif and Rosh pasken like R Yose. Tosafot asks why the need for a psak on events that will only occur le-atid le-vo. The Rosh answers that the gemara is talking about a safek mamzer. But even R Yose agree that cannot solve the problem of a certain mamzer. R Yose is teaching that there is no need to distance from safek rmamzers today since even in the future they will not be revealed. Hence, R Yose is teaching a practical halacha for today. The Rashba says the gemara does occasionally pasken on future questions and so takes the gemara literally. He is then left with the question how can the prohibition against marrying a mamzer disappear le-atid lavoh. The Rashba has an amazing answer. In the generation before the Eliyahu the rabbis will allow mamzerim as an emergency measure (horaat shaah) but when the Moshiach comes they will be pasul. So according to the Rashba at the time of the geulah there will be a one time heter allowing known mamzerim. To explain this Rashba R Shwartz that a condition for the geulah is the achdut of the nation. Mamazerut introduces a separation among Jews. Therefore for one generation the nation will have a complete achdut between families. During the "regel" all Jews are chaverim (Chahiga 27) . One explanation is that that during the holiday everyone is assumed to keep the rules of taharah. However another explanation is that during the holiday everyone is consider a chaver as part of achdut of the people. R Yose sees mamzerut as a type of Tumah and as the Moshiach comes close this tumah will be removed. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:19:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:19:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524091930.GB15539@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) : that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. ... : What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down : bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, : chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large : percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" : halacha. Well, since you already are reading this midrashically, how about... Someone who doesn't bow at modim isn't being used literally, but as a description of a kind of ingrate. Mouths the words of thank you, but isn't moved by them. And perhaps the point being made by the Zohar is that kifui tovah can be the first step, the point at which a soul goes off course and ends up -- after a downward spiral through worse offenses -- not being revivable at techiyas hameisim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:34:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:00:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see : http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ : and especially : http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 : In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even : greater... The thing is, though, the conversation before this one, which I am presuming motivated this post, was in particular about kibud av va'eim. Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. : children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises : him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful : for this is also greater. Off topic: When prospective fathers call me asking for advice about adoption, one of my first pieces of advice is that you can only do it right if you're being as selfish about it as any other man looking to become a father. If you are doing it because you can look at the child and see in their behavior and personallity some continuation of yourself into the future, fine. But a child needs parents to grow into a healthy adult, not baalei chessed. And I'm not sure if teaching a child this line of reasoning is healthy. It gets in the way of viewing themselves as part of the family's shalsheles. On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 04:10:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I never found much written about the : meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times : influenced the decisions. I think part of the problem is that much of this has to be done subconsciously. The conditions of the times change the metzi'us about which the poseiq rules. And also the poseiq has to try his best to come up with an answer based on the Torah rather than zeitgeist, but no human being's best will ever fully exclude the mood of their era. So the second people start discussing how the times impact pesaq, the discussion itself will change the answer -- and in ways that add rigidity to halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 03:14:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:14:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> References: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. > But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos > of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? I am answering for R Zilberstein so take my words with a grain of salt. First the thrust of the shiur was on the rights of the adopted parents and not on the mitzva of kibud av ve-em. He thus stressed that the adoptive parents have a right to all decisions (apitropus) on the child and not the genetic parents. In particular they make all the decisions concerning education etc including the wedding. As part of the argument he mentioned the zecher shlomo (and chida) that Avraham owed no kibud to Terach once he handed him over to Nimrod. Thus kibud av disappered (pakah) once Terach abandonded Avraham. Since it was not the topic of the shiur he did not discuss if the mitzvah to honor the adoptive parent was mi-deoraitam derabban or something else. I brought from Rav Melamed that it is "only" because of hakarat hatov but he stressed In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children Of course if the adoptive parents are abusive there is certainly no requirement of kibud or hakarat hatov. > Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there > still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein > that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. >> I again refer to YD 240:18 where the Ramah states that there is no mitzva of kibud av ve-am when the parent is a rasha. I also explicitly brought from R Zilberstein that the halachot of mourning are different and that one is required to sit shiva and say kaddish for a parent who is a rasha including one who abandonded the child and presumably an abusive parent. I also brought from Rav Schachter (second hand) that if sitting shiva for an abusive parent would present psychological problems than the child is not required to sit shiva. I would personally explain RHS that strong psychological pain can be pikuach nefesh and overrides shiva and kaddish which are only derabbanan > I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to > the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would > treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. again look at YD 240:18 with Shach, Taz, Pitchei Teshuva etc -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:31:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:31:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies > are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? > I don't think there is any issue here: babies are issued identity bracelets literally seconds after they are born, long before they leave the delivery room. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:40:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57444BBF.209@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:37 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting > down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than > murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar > large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a > "minor" halacha. I don't know how minor this is. Think about it; we're not talking about someone who never comes to shul, and never hears Modim in the first place. What kind of person comes to shul, hears Modim and knows what it is, and yet doesn't bow? Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion of politics real estate er, the Daf. Yes, definitely the Daf. Even if you're deep in, er, the sugya, so long as you're aware that the chazan is saying Modim, you bow. The kind of person who comes to shul and *doesn't* bow at Modim must have some kind of agenda, like the fellow who says "Modim Modim", or "Al Kan Tzipor...", and thus is a pretty serious sinner. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 06:46:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:46:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: <politics real estate er, the Daf. >> The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Looking at it again Tosafot (appears on 16b) asks the same question that I mentioned that all Jews have a share in the world to come. Nevetheless as I mentioned Kaf HaChaim brings a Zohar that one does lose one share in the world to come for not bowing at modin. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 09:46 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back >> bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion >> of politics real estate er, the Daf. > The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim > in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking > about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:38:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: <> I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 13:47:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:47:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744BDCB.7010207@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:38 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. Not to adopting, but to pretending that the child is not adopted, which was the fashion in the early and middle 20th century. By the '70s this fad had mostly passed, and it became accepted that adopted children need to know the truth from the beginning. > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. > see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 See the last piece, at the end of page 2, by R Eliezerov, which explains the confusion that some people have. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:02:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:02:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> Message-ID: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at > modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:05:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:05:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> Message-ID: <5744C20F.1030206@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 05:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at >> modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. That is clearly not whom the gemara or the zohar means. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 20:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 03:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years >his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years >and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara >literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) > >I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) >that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. >First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in >techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend >11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in >techiyat hamettim. Interesting. Is the Kaf haChaim, and the Zohar, interpreting the gemara in?Bava Kamma 16a? http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41181&st=&pgnum=106 https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%90_%D7%98%D7%96_%D7%91 That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, allegorically, to mean?that those people won't be resurrected? Kol Tuv,Josh Waxman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 03:14:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:14:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: As you know, the question of whether a Bar Mitsva boy continues counting Sefira is the topic of much discussion and Bar Mitzva derashot. Sefardi Poskim tend to assur, Ashkenazi tend to be lenient. But one of the major arguments in favor of a BAR mitsva boy continuing to count is that before Bar Mitzvah he was rabbinically obligated (mi-derabanan) because of Hinnukh. I was recently asked about what to advise a BAT Mitsva girl who has been carefully counting every night - under the same conditions. It would seem that in contradistinction to a minor male, there is no obligation of hinnukh on minor females to count sefira. Indeed, a parent has no obligation of hinnukh on mitsvot that will not be obligatory when the child becomes an adult. Hence, a parent need not train his daughter in mitsvot aseh she-haZeman gramman. See R. Yehoshua Neuwirth, The Halachoth of Educating Children, Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1999) Dinim Kelaliyyim, parag. 2, p. 2; R. Barukh Rakovsky, ha-Katan ve-Hilkhotav, I, ch. 2, no. 7. So I think that - even according to the lenient Ashkenazic sources - it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. But she should definitely continue counting (without a Berakha) because counting is the ikkar mitsva - not the berakha. If someone has sources or solid grounds to be meikeil - I'd be happy and thankful to hear them. Kol Tuv Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 06:48:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:48:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?_May_a_Chassan_May_a_Chassan_who_is_get?= =?windows-1252?q?ting_married_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omerwho_is_getting_mar?= =?windows-1252?q?ried_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omer_shave_earlier_in_the_day?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_on_the_32nd_of_the_Omer=2C_before_shekiah=3F?= Message-ID: <1464184133111.74887@stevens.edu> >From OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a Chassan who is getting married the night of Lag B?Omer shave earlier in the day, on the 32nd of the Omer, before shekiah? What is the halacha concerning relatives and other guests attending the wedding? A. The prevalent custom is that one may get married on the night of Lag B?Omer. The halacha in general regarding shaving is to wait until after sunrise on the morning of Lag B?Omer. Rav Belsky zt?l ruled that the chassan and the fathers of the chassan and kallah may shave on the 32nd day of the Omer before shekiah. Other family members and guests should not shave before shekiah. Rav Belsky zt?l did permit them to bring a shaver to the wedding and shave there after shekiah. (See ???? ????, Volume One, pages 109 ? 110) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 10:24:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:24:17 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] expulsions Message-ID: why could not the Dannites leave the megadef in their midst, what would have been so terrible? it was brought in the name of the Alter of Kelm that you see from here how important to remove bad influence from their midst [and Dan were not considered the cream of the crop]. this may be a source for those that disagree with the tack that removing students from an educational mossad should not be done easily , as pikuach nefesh. the nefesh in question according to the Alter would be the rest of the institution..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 08:44:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:44:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?May_I_listen_to_slow_music_during_sefir?= =?windows-1252?q?as_ha=92omer=3F?= Message-ID: <1464277506499.46892@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May I listen to slow music during sefiras ha?omer? A. Music should not be listened to during sefira whether it is fast or slow, even though slow music is less prone to stimulate one to dance. Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim I:166) questions whether one may listen to music for enjoyment throughout the year, and concludes that although throughout the year there are lenient opinions, but during the period of sefira one must be strict. If one was in a state of moodiness or discontent, Rav Belsky zt?l was of the opinion that even during sefira he may lift his spirits with slow music, provided he does not listen excessively. (See ???? ????, Volume One, p. 106) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 11:32:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:32:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. >> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Yichud%20Prohibition%20-%20Part%201.htm The article does bring other poskim including the LR who were strict. Rav Jachter's conclusion is: Obviously, anyone to whom this issue is relevant should consult his Rav for a ruling. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 14:42:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:42:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160526214223.GA15628@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The : gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: :> Lo sochal alav chametz :> Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos :> Do not eat chametz with it :> For seven days you will eat matzos : Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. But this is derashah, not sevara. : .... Why should we resort to a lomdishe : juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for : us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: :> Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos :> Ki lo chametz :> Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah :> They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza :> Because it did not become chametz :> Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay : Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become : chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* : become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. Except that this is a historical statement, descriptive, not prescritive. Their wheat dough was matzah because it happened not to become chameitz -- for reasons the pasuq wants us to notice. Teshu'as H' keheref ayin. And peshat is a pasuq in chumash like in all of Tanakh is more concerned with Mussar than halakhah. It's not a halakhah book at the expense of being a Mussar book. As they say about ayin tachas ayin, peshat is values, derashah exists to provide the halakhah givien the mapping of those values to a limited reality and limited humans. But does that "ki" mean that the lack of becoming chameitz is a defining feature? Maybe a lack of sirchon would also be good lehalakhah, but didn't come up. (Given how much more available wheat was in Egypt.) "Ki" could refer to sufficient cause, you are assuming the pasuq means necessary cause. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 33rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total Fax: (270) 514-1507 submission to truth, and what results? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 19:23:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:23:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> On 05/26/2016 02:32 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah > > There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. > Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's > forbidden, and that's that. >> > > Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 04:13:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:13:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:21:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Asher Weiss Re: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Despite what I wrote two hours ago, I was just notified by my Brother Dov that he discussed the issue with Rav Asher Weiss Shlita last night at his Thursday night Shiur in Har Nof Jerusalem. Rav Asher holds that as long as there is continuity, the girl can continue counting with a berakha after her bat Mitsva. Yiyasher Kochacha and Shabbat Shalom Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il ________________________________ From: Aryeh Frimer Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:13 PM To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 08:44:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:44:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim Message-ID: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Off line conversation that I'm belatedly moving to Avodah: I asked: Starting at 21:6 (then 21:8, and etc etc.) the phrase "lechem Elokim" is used a number of times. Onkelos translates lechem as korban each time -- which is exactly what one would guess. While my Hebrew isn't great, I couldn't find a single mention of this in my Mikraos G'dolos (just about every mention of that pasuk talks about the first part of the pasuk, about forcing a Kohen to give a get). Perhaps it's just so obvious that lechem means korban here, that it's literally unremarkable. But, still, the use of the word "lechem" seems odd to me. It's as if the Torah is going out of its way to make things sound _more_ anthropomorphic, more primitive, than it needs to. (Granted -- now that I think about it, the phrase "rayach nichoach" also seems gratuitously anthropomorphic -- but: (a) there is some commentary on that phrase; and (b) perhaps we hear "rayach nichoach" so often we're just used to it.) Does anybody have any thoughts on why the Torah, after using the words "korban" or "olah" this entire Sefer, suddenly switches to "lechem" in this perek? R Seth Mandel answered: : From a linguistic point of view, I do not consider the usage remarkable. : This is the House of HQBH, and the qorbanot are His Daily Portion. : The use of the word lechem to describe "portion/allotment" I consider : a perfectly normal, if poetic, term. R MIcha Berger responded: ... It would be interesting to confirm this... Does anyone associate Vayiqra 21 with qorbanos that are forced by the calendar, to the exclusion of chatas, asham, todah, etc...? Does qedushas kohanim have more to do with such qorbanos than others? (And if so, does this relate to which qorbanos were allowed on bamos back in the days of bamos?) Anyone else have any thoughts? (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this significant at all?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 09:11:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:11:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim In-Reply-To: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: <574871A5.80303@sero.name> On 05/27/2016 11:44 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with > "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this > significant at all?) We say twice a day "Vaydaber YKVK ... es korboni *lachmi* le'ishai, rei'ach nichochi". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 11:52:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160527185244.GB24209@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:48:27AM +0000, Joshua Waxman via Avodah wrote: : That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is : located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, : allegorically, to mean that those people won't be resurrected? Teaser for my post But the name of the city was "Luz" originally by micha ? [15 Kislev '765] - Fri, Dec 16, 2005 And he [Ya'aqov] called the name of that place Beis-el, but the name of the city was Luz originally. - Bereishis 28:19 Luz, the original name for Beis-el, is apparently the name of a kind of tree, usually translated "chestnut". It's one of the kinds of wood from which Ya'aqov avinu made sticks for the sheep and goats to look at... Bereishis Rabba (69:8) discusses the amazing properties of living in the city of Luz: * They always told the truth. * No one in the city died. When people got old and tired, they needed to move out for nature to take its course. * The city was never conquered by Sancheirev, and wasn't destroyed by Nevuchadnetzar at the end of the first commonwealth... Luz is also the name of a special bone in the body, where the skull and spine meet. Two medrashim associate the luz bone with Hadrian y"sh.... Luz seems particularly connected with Yaiaqov, the one who renames it. First, his service of G-d centers around emes, truth, the middah exemplified by the citizens of Luz. He uses the luz sticks... ... The mishnah says "derekh eretz qodmah laTorah -- proper behavior in society is a prerequisite to Torah." Our aggaditos and midrashim seem to converge on underscoring that point. Luz is the city of truth, it has the permanence of truth both territorially and in the lifespans of its inhabitants. And it's truth, the personality trait about which Yaiaqov centers his service of Hashem, which determines techiyas hameisim. All of these medrashim refer to Luz, to the trait. When referring to applying the pursuit of truth to Torah study or worshipping Hashem, then we progress from Luz to Beis-el. The stick shows the influence of environment... The bone luz is situated just where the mind connects to the body. It is therefore, in a very real sense, "beis keil", G-d's "home" in this world. Ya'aqov builds a circle of stones in which to sleep at this spot, which -- as R' Hirsch notes ad loc -- is the first home of Israel. He gets a vision of a ladder between heaven and earth, an externalized luz bone between mind and body. Once one has the foundation of "Luz", one has the proper personality and attitude to provide some solidity in time and in social context. Then one is capable of building that derekh eretz into Torah, making their soul a house of G-d. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 34th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 and maintain a stable relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 29 05:36:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 08:36:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> References: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160529123638.GB24648@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:23:15PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>> There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. :>> Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's :>> forbidden, and that's that. :> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. : No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you : were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. OTOH, given the size of the observant American community loyal to RMF's pesaqim, anything he says can't simply be dismissed as "rare" either. RYBS was meiqil as well. And, FWIW, was R' Zvi Flaum, a talmid of R' Dovid Lifshitz's - now RY of Shaarei Tzion, oour LOR back when we adopted and the question first arose. I am also curious... RMMS pasqened? Didn't he generally delegate that role to others, leaving himself as head mashpia / moreh derekh, rather than moreh hora'ah? Did this somehow become an emotionally charged machloqes, like eruv for some reason tends to? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 36th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in Fax: (270) 514-1507 being a stable and reliable partner? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 05:25:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:25:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: R. Aryeh Frimer posits that a girl who becomes Bat Mizva during sefira should not continue counting with a bracha after becoming bat mitzva, since, unlike a boy, she had no mitzva to count as a minor because of chinuch. I find this very counterintuitive; on the contrary, it seems to me that a girl has more reason to continue counting with a bracha than a boy. A boy upon becoming bar-mitzva during sefira goes from a status of non-chiyuv (obligation) to chiyuv; one may question whether what he counted in a state of non-chiyuv "counts" when he enters a state of chiyuv. On this point, some poskim say that there was a chiyuv all along, at least rabbinically, so no fundamental change took place; some disagree. A girl, on the other hand, has no chiyuv either before or after her bar mitzva; in this respect, nothing changed at all when she became bat mitzva. Thus, if the girl has been making a bracha on sefira throughout the sefira period, in keeping with Ashkenazi practice, it seems to me that she should continue to make a bracha on sefira after becoming bat mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:42:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:42:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas Message-ID: my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 08:34:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:34:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parshah Dual Dichotomy 5776 Message-ID: <1464622469992.18876@stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6863 For many of us in the know, as well as to the surprise of anyone who might be thinking of traveling to or from Eretz Yisrael, say anytime from after Pesach until Shabbos Chazon, right before Tisha B'Av, something is off. I am referring to the weekly parshah, which would not be the same regularly scheduled one in Chutz La'aretz as it is in Eretz Yisrael. Truthfully, this type of dichotomy actually happens not so infrequently, as it essentially occurs whenever the last day of a Yom Tov falls on Shabbos. In Chutz La'aretz where Yom Tov Sheini is halachically mandated,[1] a Yom Tov Krias HaTorah is publicly leined, yet, in Eretz Yisrael (unless by specific Chutznik minyanim[2]) the Krias HaTorah of the next scheduled parshah is read. This puts Eretz Yisrael a parshah ahead until the rest of the world soon 'catches up', by an upcoming potential double-parshah, which each would be read separately in Eretz Yisrael. See the above URL for much more about this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:18:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jack Stroh via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 18:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> References: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Message-ID: <20160531013511.GA21014@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 02:18:52PM -0400, Jack Stroh via Avodah wrote: : Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with : Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the : disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. Back a step... Our current leining schedule post-dates Chazal, the standardization ceoms from the geonim. And originally it was in use in Bavel. In EY, 3 or 3-1/2 year leining systems were more common. So the systme was designed for chu"l; the parshios chu"l shuls aren't doubling up aren't supposed to be doubled. It's Israel that slipped out of proper alignment with geonic intent. So the question really is why doesn't Israel fall back into line and minimize their drift from the original geonic schedule. Well, this year there are no doubled parshios for them to split until Matos-Masei -- just in time to realign Devarim with the 9 days. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 02:17:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:17:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children Message-ID: <> <> I agree with Micha. I again bring a list of prominent poskim who agree with RMF so it certainly is not a solitary opinion. I would strongly argue that in practice most people follow the lenient opinion. The article I previously quoted brought those to disagreed and concluded that one should check it out with his local rabbi. He certainly did not dismiss the lenient opinion. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. Rav Nachum Rabinovitch (the prominent Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivat Hesder of Maaleh Adumim) is cited in Techumin 10:317 by Rav Azariah Berzon as agreeing with the aforementioned Poskim who permit adoptive parents to have Yichud with their adoptive children. Rav Rabinovitch notes that Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:08:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:08:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160531180845.GA12478@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:17:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Rabinovitch notes that : Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. R' Zundel Salant says that it was the zekhus of adopting the children of those who died in makas choshekh that we were redeemed from Mitzrayim. Since we are obligated to remember yetzi'as Mitzrayim, I can't call it "time immemorial", but since our birth as a nation, certainly. >From : Chamushim Hashem brought the nation around, via the path of the desert, the Red Sea; and the Children of Israel arose chamushim (to be defined) from the Land of Egypt. - Shemos 13:8 ... and the Jews enthusiastically departed from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Unqelus (ad loc) ... with good deeds... - Jerusalem Targum (ad loc) ... one in five. -Tanchuma (Warsaw ed. #1), Mechilta ... and the Jews departed with five infants from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Yonasan (ad loc) Rashi defines "chamushim as "armed", which underlies the Targumim of Unqelus and Yerushalmi. Armed in a spiritual sense, prepared with good deeds. Another definition would be from chameish, five, leading to the medrash concluding that only 1/5 of the Jewish were saved from Egypt. Rashi adds that the other 4/5 of the population died in Egypt during the plague of darkness. These were the people who didn't merit redemption; those who believed in the Egyptian paganism and wanted to stay. Deriving chamushim from the number five is also the point of departure for the Targum Yonsan's "departed with five infants." But the medrash on Shemos, describing the Egypt experience, told us that we had six children at a time. How then can the Targum Yonasan here mean that every Jew left with five children, as though this smaller number is something that should impress us? The Be'er Yoseif therefore believes the naive read of the Targum Yonasan is incorrect. Instead, the Be'er Yoseif explains all these targumim in light of each other. The word chamushim was chosen not despite the ambiguity, but because of all its connotations. Four fifths of the Jewish people died rather than being saved. But what about their children? The youth didn't deserve death, even if they agreed with their parents -- as children, they aren't accountable or punishable for their crimes. The Be'er Yoseif explains that this means that each of the 600,000 men left Egypt had to have left with five families of children -- his own, and those of four families left orphaned by this punishment. Far more than the six-at-a-time that were born to them. This is not only the intent of the Targum Yonasan, but also, raising others' children the "good deeds" of the Jerusalem Targum, as well as the "zerizus", the enthusiasm, of the Targum Unqelus. They were prepared and surrounded by the mitzvah of taking in these children in need. Today we think of adoption as something someone does when they r"l can't have children of their own. However, in light of this devar Torah, we see that this mitzvah played a central role in defining us as a people. According to the Be'er Yosef, it is the merit of adopting orphans that rendered us ready for the redemption from Egypt! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 09:15:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ie in ghettoized Europe , the Accursed Wandering Jew was only the killer of the 'saviour'; not much better in Moslem Middle East. In Modern Times, it can't refer to the million chassidim , to whom isolationism is the ideal , not to mention theologies of the value of the gentile. In Litvish models, ideally the Jew should be confined to the beis medrash , and the spouse 'kvoodah pnima'. It is only the lack of Manna that interferes and forces bedieved one out of the ghetto. The OTD Jews of the last 200 yrs who have impacted every walk of life and every class of endeavor in academia , commerce , culture and liberal polity can not have been what chazal had in mind. The Israel model is the most vilified political entity on Earth. If it's only a messianic concept , then it has nothing to do with the Jews , only the Messiah. so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:40:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:40:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? > > SNIP > > so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, > practically. > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or they need work in this area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 03:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:25:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/31/2016 9:40 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in > Yishayahu. It is a real concept. No, it is not. > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? The phrase ohr l'goyim doesn't exist. There are three verses where something similar exists. Isaiah 49:6 says that Hashem has placed us l'ohr goyim. Isaiah 42:6 also says that Hashem placed us l'ohr goyim. And Isaiah 60:3 says that nations will walk in our light. There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us. And it's not for any specific generation, I don't think, but all of them. We are the example. Whenever I hear "ohr l'goyim" it irks me, because it's such a mistake. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> References: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160601165119.GB20066@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:25:31PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The : former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the : nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among : nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us.... This is clearly peshat in Yeshaiah 60:3, "beholkhu goyim le'oreikh..." But "le'or goyim", in 42:6 and 49:6... I would have said something close to the reverse; to me le'or goyim sounds more like an imperative. An or lagoyim is a descriptive construction. Yeshaiah would be saying that we are light for the nations. L'or goyim is more prescriptive, we are "to provide light for nations". Not as a light, but in to be one. And it's up to us to actually illuminate. BTW, according to Rashi (42:6) those goyim are the shevatim, not other nations. And according the Metzudas David, it's a messianic prophecy, not an imperative before-hand. The thing is, we're obligated to serve as a nation of kohanim in the here-and-now regardless of Yeshaiah. So I see this as a discussion of peshat in the pesuqim, with no pragmatic difference to hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 39th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliable person? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:22:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:22:27 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it >> practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. > It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then > show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other > nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or > they need work in this area. my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of humanity in all generations; except possibly recent times, when those clearly NOT living a halachic life are seen by some at least to have been a source of blessing... furthermore, we fast on the day the Bible was translated, so we can't even say that the other Abrahamic religions is the explanation, since they become in a sense Fruit of a poisonous tree, to use the legal analogy From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 02:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:58:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: I am gratified that my understanding that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during the sefira period can continue to count with a bracha was also expressed to RAFrimer by RMH. Unlike RAFrimer, I do not think that this this constitutes a "fundamental misunderstanding" of brachot women make on time-bound mitzvoth, according to the Rema and standard Ashkenazic practice. If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her chiyuv-level not having changed. I am completely unsurprised that Rav Asher Weiss paskened that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during sefira can continue counting with a bracha, based on his understanding of the mitzvah of sefirat haomer, as appears in Minchat Asher Vayikra chapter 51. R. Asher asks a series of questions that indicate that sefirat haomer is different from other mitzvoth which are performed verbally (see there). He then explains as follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting avodat Hashem. Shofar, lulav, matza are examples of the former. Biur chametz and maakeh are examples of the latter. We make brachot on both categories of mitzvot, but there are differences between them. Sefirat Haomer is a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the mitzvah itself; the avodaat Hashem of sfirat haomer is knowing the count every day, not saying the words themselves. Saying the words is the action by which the desired result is achieved (unlike other verbal mitzvoth like kriyat shma and hallel in which saying the words themselves is avodat Hashem). R. Asher explained elsewhere that mitzvot in which the tozaa is the mitzvah do not require kavana , which is why someone who answers the question "what's the count tonight?" without intending to perform the mitzvah of sefira is nevertheless considered to have performed the mitzvah. In sefira, when a day is counted, when the result of the counting has been achieved (the person knows, by counting, what day it is), the mitzvah has been done. My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) , even if strictly he is not obligated; when he becomes a gadol, he is considered not to have missed any days, and can continue to count with a bracha. As Rav Asher explicitly paskened, this applies to a k'tana as well. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 04:36:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:36:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25c18a21-7bfc-78f4-f9a0-30ba738263a7@zahav.net.il> To give a metaphor: If the machine generating the light is working improperly, the light could be dangerous and it needs to be sent out for repair. Without getting into the question of how the machine broke down (God directing or us choosing to break it), it is clear that if we aren't doing the job, a tikkun is required Ben On 6/1/2016 6:22 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged > history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of > humanity in all generations; From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 07:33:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:33:30 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>>It shows we or they need work in this area. ---- meila i can understand blaming us . but to blame 'they' , the goyim is saying they refused to hear the gospel..... >>>>>>If the machine generating the light is working improperly ---- or properly working light, just that the potential buyers threw it in garbage I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to listen to our message... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:21:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: I am responding on avodah to some remarks on arevim > So if the health minister happens to be ... anti-vaxx ..., suddenly the > halacha has to turn around?! And after the next election it turns around > again?! Look at what happened in Israel two years ago, when German > was health minister and decided to end fluoridation. Now Litzman is > restarting it. Was everyone supposed to change their minds in those two > years, or accept that the truth changed, just because the government did?! This completely misunderstands the role of government rules. Besides dina de-malchuta we learn that if not for the government we would live in anarchy everyone decides for themselves what is best. Medieval philosophers and commentaries debate why one must listen to the government. Opinions range from divine rights to the king can kick you out to more modern theories that the citizens accept the rule by staying in the country and especially by accepting privileges from the government like the use of roads, army, schools etc. In consonance with the Mishna we listen to the government because without it there is chaos. The government specifies safety laws, traffic laws, tries thieves and murderers, has laws against sexual and drug abuse There is nothing in these theories about the government always being right. Obviously, governments are made from people who make decisions and different countries have different laws some more liberal and some more conservative. However in each country one is required by HALACHA to follow the government regulations (as long as they don't conflict with halacha). If the regulations change over time then yes the observant Jew much change his behavior just as he changes when doctors change their views or when a bet din changes their views. When batei dinim in different locales disagree then each community must follow their local bet din. Pointing out that a different bet din disagrees doesn;t matter one must follow the local bet din. Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. ------------------------- In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Some possibilites that have been offered include 1) There is a mitzvat aseh to listen to the rabbis 2) It is based on logic similar to above, otherwise it leads to chaos He went into a side discussion of the status of sevara (deoraita?) and a Rav Akiva Eiger. 3) The rabbis are smarter than us and so we should listen. RMA points out that there is an intrinsic problem. If the reason is too good then we are back to question that it becomes a deoraita. If it is weak then listening to the rabbis becomes wishy-washy, ie if circumstances change, if one disagrees with their reasoning etc. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 09:49:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603165041.NPMS27913.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> R S Newman has posed the question in a provocatively interesting way. Thanks! Musing out loud, is it possible that the concept applies to Torah/Torah values in addition to its people? For example, doesn't the Rambam offer that Xtianity and Islam, both "offshoots", if you will, of Judaism, have moved the world's population (at least partially, in the case of some part of Xtianity) away from A"Z? As a second data point, R Jonathan Sacks often points out how many of the world's ideas are rooted in Torah (e.g., equality (even the King!) before the law, which, in turn, gave rise to (because it was a necessary pre-condition of) democracy, etc.). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 11:04:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: <133b75.a02d7da.44832097@aol.com> ohr lagoyim when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ....so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. >>>> It began long before Chazal, in the time of Avraham Avinu. (The concept, not the exact words.) And Yitzchak and Yakov. "All the nations of the world will be blessed through you." For the incredible moral and intellectual influence the Jews have had on the rest of the world throughout history, see Thomas Cahill's book, *The Gifts of the Jews* and read Dennis Prager's review of the book in *First Things* which summarizes the book's main points. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/11/002-cahills-gift Hirsch in the introduction to his commentary on Tehillim shows that Dovid Hamelech meant for Sefer Tehillim to be used as a book of prayer by all the nations of the world and indeed, this has come to pass, with Tehillim having been translated into practically every language in the world. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:22:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:22:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:37:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:33:30AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . : so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to : listen to our message... As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those words exist anyway? RBW assumes that it does, and therefore if we are unhappy with the rate of progress, we should asume the light needs fixing, not that its users are neglecting it. But I have no doubt that our influence has had a central role in the progress of civilization. Whether or not we consciously worked at it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 11:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:20:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier For a detailed answer see http://rabbikaganoff.com/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:11:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> References: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57539853.9030809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:22 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the > : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? > > The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? The first 11 chapters of Devarim is a tochacha. But it's not curses, which is what we usually associate with the term. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > words exist anyway? In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; that people will come to EY to do business with Shevet Zevulun, and while they're there they will do some touristing and visit Y'm to see what is to be seen, and be so impressed that they'll accept the 7 mitzvos and bring zivchei tzedek. So there's no missionising, no outreach, just us being ourselves, and those who are already prone to be attracted to the light will be attracted. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 09:04:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:04:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160605160452.GA11606@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:20:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. : The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier : For a detailed answer see : http://rabbikaganoff.com/ With all due respect to RYK, what I said earlier is historically correct: the currently leining system was designed by geonim for Bavel. So chu"l leining for the 8th of Pesach instead of Acharei-Mos was correct scheduling. It is Israel that got ahead. So the major question is why does EY wait until Matos Mas'ei to split a double parashah and fall back into sync with the design? And that's easy -- because all the double parshios before then are already split! If you want to ask why the ge'onim have us splitting all the double parshios, yes, that has to do with timing the tochachah to be 2 Shabbasos before Shavuos. But that's not a why we didn't catch up to EY yet thing -- catching up was never a goal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 05:45:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 08:45:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wrote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? There are multiple r Avigdor miller shiurim where he demonstrates clearly that Jewish ideas have slowly entered the goyishe (western) world thru us. Where Jews did not live, our teachings have yet to have the same effect (far east, Africa, etc) This is also the message of r Aryeh Kaplan in 'If You Were God' http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48970646.html See r ken Spiro's 12 part series world perfect where he demonstrates that this has occurred http://www.aish.com/sem/wp/ Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c learn from us) Its true we spent most of our history just trying to survive, but by osmosis (and more) our ideas and ideals have molded and raised the level of humanity as a whole Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 10:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:09:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> References: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> Message-ID: <57545CC9.3050301@sero.name> On 06/05/2016 08:45 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient > madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be > dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c > learn from us) The gemara says that "Israel was only exiled among the nations so that converts should be added to them". Note the passive form. Even in galus we were not expected to actively recruit gerim, but rather to live among the nations so that those who are naturally attracted to our way of life would be able to find us and avail themselves of an option that they would otherwise never know about. Not even a symbolic hishtadlus is expected of us; we are simply to do our own thing, but in a place where potential gerim will see us. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 12:46:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:46:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those : >words exist anyway? : : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; ... The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an imperative to put in conscious effort as well. My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to avodas Hashem. Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat in "le'or goyim". There is also a possibility that le'or goyim is a messianic prophecy. Like And the same questions could be raised with "Halkhu amim rabim... Ki miTzion teitzei Sorah..." De facto, it will? We must act in a way that causes Torah to be spread from Zion? Now? Le'asid lavo? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 13:00:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:00:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitzva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: In discussing the case of a girl who became bat mitzva in the course of sefira, it is instructive to consider the analysis of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik (the Rov) of the Bahag's opinion on sefirat haomer (see Harrei Kedem Volume II chapter 112). The position of the Bahag is that one who does not count one day of omer does not make a bracha on subsequent days The Rov did not accept the widely-held opinion that the Bahag holds that there is one mitzva to count all 49 days. Rather, each day of sefira is a separate mitzva. However, on each day, there is a "din mesuyam", a particular law that the previous days have been counted. If this is not true, one is counting not sequentially, but with skipping, not the count the Torah specified. Skipping a day invalidates each and every subsequent day, not the totality of the count. As is well known, according to the Bahag, one who forgot to count at night counts during the day without a bracha, but may subsequently count with a bracha. The Rov asked: according to the Bahag, does one fulfill the mitzva of sefira during the day? If so, why doesn't one make a bracha? If not, why may one continue counting subsequent days with a bracha? The Rov held that the Bahag held like Rabbeinu Tam that the mitzva of sefira is only at night, and when one counts during the day he does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all. However, when counting during the day, one does a "maase sefira", an act of counting, even if he does not perform "mitzvat sefira". This maase sefira makes his counting connected, and he can continue counting with a bracha, although there was one day on which he did not perform the mitzva of sefira at all. According to the Bahag, one who forgot to count the 49th night gains nothing by counting the following day, since one does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all during the day. Counting during the day is not in itself a mitzva, but only helps to enable counting subsequent days with a bracha. Even if one were to say that a katan (minor) does not have a chiyyuv (obligation) to count sefira, and a katan that counts has not performed the mitzva of sefira, nevertheless his count is a "maase sefira", an act of counting. In this way the count of a minor is similar to counting during the day; it is a masse sefira which enables one to continue counting with a bracha, even when the katan becomes a gadol. Clearly, this applies to a minor girl exactly as it does to a minor boy. The Rov noted that even if one were to know that he will not be able to count every night until Shavuot, he counts every night with a bracha until he misses, since each night's count is a separate mitzva, and skipping a future night will not invalidate a previous night's mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 23:49:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:49:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 6/5/2016 10:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > : >words exist anyway? > : > : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; > ... > > The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort > and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an > imperative to put in conscious effort as well. > > My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a > statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being > a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? And I think the answer is "no". > So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to > shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim > either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to > avodas Hashem. Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the nations of the world. > Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. > [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, > hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. And again, no chiyuv here. > > Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... > > It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that > is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat > in "le'or goyim". No one is saying it isn't a good thing. But we prioritize, and whether a thing is an obligation or not goes into the calculation of those priorities. This isn't an obligation. To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 19:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 22:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ain machlokess bo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5b76f9d9-80e4-c222-c9e6-881437eb0fb9@gmail.com> In //Dynamics of Dispute/,/ I develop the idea that the Rambam, when he says that there is no //machlokess/ /b'payrush mekubal miSinai/,/ he does not mean that there were no disputes *about* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. He means that there was no disagreeing *against* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. In note 12 (p. 82) I wrote that in addition to indications that this is so from other writings of the Rambam and their applications to talmudic sources, The //Mevo HaTalmud//, attributed to Shmuel HaNaggid, indicates this definition of the word //machlokess// as well. I have just found that the Meiri on Avos 5:19, regarding a different subject, explicitly gives this definition to the word //machlokess//, explicitly negating it in the other sense. He writes: It seems to me that [the use of the word] ''machlokess'' attaches only to the one who responds to the first [speaker]. I.e. ...when a second person responds [to the first] and says, ''What you say is proper to do is improper, or what you taught is wrong,'' this [response] is the ''machlokess.''...the "machlokess" only refers to one of the two sides, the one that responds to the first. Another way to put it: Sometimes the word //machlokess/ /refers to an opposing opinion, not to two or more opposing opinions. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 05:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:56:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> >> No one is saying it isn't a good thing. ..To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. R Avigdor miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 09:22:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:22:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. ------ the only problem i have with their approach is that , had the Jewish people been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies their job was basically done---since a billion xtians then took over , and a billion moslems after that . the direct interaction of jews w goyim in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to have minimal direct impact . where jews have major impact in modern times , in science , entertainment , ,media etc are ways that clearly were not only not what Scripture had in mind, but in many cases directly contravening Tradition.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 04:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:56:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R > Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the > requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo > tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban > becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita > is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 12:49:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:49:09AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to :> shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim :> either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to :> avodas Hashem. : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the : nations of the world. So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a tzivui? :> Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. : Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. (I just noticed this tied to "mamlekhes kohanim" quite smoothly.) We also see from hilkhas geneivas aku"m that chilul hasheim and qiddush hasheim involve whether we ch"v distance aku"m from AYH or merit to draw them closer. So I guess we could add qiddush hasheim and avoiding chilul among the list of potetial imperatives that say le'or goyim in more clearly tzivui terms. Going back to the parshanus of le'or goyim... RET posted on Areivim in 2012 (quoted then by RnCL, with permission at , quoting IE and the Radaq (49:6) that le'or goyim refers to Yeshaiah's nevu'ah 00 the light is the nations seeing that his nevu'ah was fulfilled. And thus not about the Jewish people at all. To which RnCL replied citing the Rashi (as I already wrote, in one place he takes "goyim" to mean shevatim, and thus uplifting other Jews) and then quotes the other Radaq (42:6) and translated: > And so you would be also l'or goyim like it says "And nations shall > walk to/in your light -v'helchu goyim l'orech" [Yeshiyahu 60:3 - where > it is pretty clear that it is the nation Israel being talked about] > and the light is the Torah that shall go out to them from Tzion. And then translating Metzudas David (ad loc): > L'or goyim - to light the eyes of all the nations to know that Hashem > hu haElokim. Closing with her own thesis: > And indeed I think that it is the other pasuk quoted by the Radak, ie > v'helchu goyim l'orech that is the one that is the real source for the > common understanding which is usually labelled as Or l'goyim. That pasuk > is quoted all over the place (unlike l'or goyim), for example in dozens > of places in midrash raba, tanchuma, pesikta d'rav kahana etc And a lot > of the commentary in the various midrashic sources involves analogies > between the shemen zayis that lights the Beis HaMikdash and Yisrael who > lights the world -eg Shemos Raba which goes on to say and so our fathers > were called zayis because they gave light to all with their emunah. > > That is, to my mind, the concept which we understand to be or l'goyim is > unquestionably there in the sources - it is just generally drawn from a > psuk that is much more of a mouthful (Yeshiyahu 60:3). L'Or goyim, does, > it would seem according to all the classic commentators, mean a light to > the nations, as we would understand it, but, at least on one of the two > pasukim where it is used, it is understood as referring to Isaiah himself, > not the Jews in general (but note that it is clearly a good thing, > and high praise of Isaiah, that he should be considered this). And, > as so often seems to be the case (and as discussed with tikun olam) > the phrase which tends to roll off the lips in the common parlance is > not the strictly correct biblical terminology, but the one that sort of > sounds right to the ear of the layperson to get to the concept of which > they are aware. To continue her thought to focus on 60:3, I see BB 75a explains vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as a messianic prophecy, and someting HBH will do, not even hilkhisa demeshichasa. Metzudas David: "As to say, from you they will learn the ways of Hashem and you will light their eyes." Also, not clearly a tzivui. The Tanya 1:36 takes "vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as messianic, and thus not a tzivui for the here-and-now The Malbim takes the pasuq as prophetic and descriptive, linking the seifa, "yeilekhu leneged zarchakha" to "ukhvodo alayikh yra'eh" in the previous pasuq. Okay, given 60:2, we could presume 60:3 isn't imperative either. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:38:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:38:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> References: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> Message-ID: <20160606203815.GB983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:56:44AM -0400, M Cohen wrote: : R Avigdor Miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out : and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own : backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Maybe in theory we should clean up our own backyard first, but... Anyone in kiruv would question whether they are all that separable. My own most inspiring Shabbasos were in NCSY, experiencing it with people for whom it was one of their first few attempts to observe Shabbos. Similarly, anyone who has given a shiur will tell you that the topics they prepared to teach others are those they know best. And even during the shiur -- umitalmidai yoseir mikulam. Maybe if we invested effort being a mamlekhes kohanim, we would be better at avoiding messing up our own backyard too. And for a Hirschain perspective... The Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch by Rabbi Mayer Schiller http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/humanisim_rsrh.pdf Jewish Action (Summer 5759/1981) pp. 21-26. Vol.49, No. 3 On pg 24 (PDF pg 4) he quotes 19 Letters where RSRH talks about a world in which every Jew would be a mutely eloquent example and teacher of universal righteousness and universal love; if thus the dispersed of Israel were to show themselves everywhere on earth as the glorious priests of God and pure humanity... RSRH makes a duty to set an example. Not to actively teachm but not to ignore the example we set either. And then there's the Semag (Asei 74), which I translated for : I already expounded to the exiled from Jerusalem who are in Spain and the other Roman exiles that now that the exile has gone on far too long, it is appropriate for Israel to separate from the vanities of the world and grab onto the signet of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is truth, and not to lie neither to Jew nor to gentile. Not to mislead them in any way. To sanctify themselves even in what is permitted to them, as it says, "The remnant of Israel do not commit sin, do not speak lies, and one won't find a false tongue in their mouths." (Tzefaniah 3:13) And when Hashem comes to save them, the nations will say, "It was done justly, for they are a people of truth and the Torah of truth is in their mouths." But if they act with the gentiles with trickery, they will say, "See what the Holy One, blessed be He did, that chose for His portion thieves and con-men." Also, it says, "I will plant her [the Jewish People] for myself in the land..." (Hosheia 2:25) A person doesn't plant a kur [of seed] but to produce numerous kurim. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, planted Israel among the lands so that converts will join them (Pesachim 87b) and every time that they conduct themselves with trickery, who will attach to them? It seems that unless we act in a way that makes it obvious to non-Jews that our redemption would be just, the Semag expects us to continue to languish here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:39:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> On 06/06/2016 03:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I > : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the > : nations of the world. > > So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > tzivui? 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. 2) What is the origin of This idea you keep pushing, that "mamlechet kohanim" has some connection to outreach to anyone, let alone nochrim? 2a)Since when is that a kohen's job? 2b) Pshat in "kohanim" is princes, as in "uvnei David kohanim" (Rashi) This whole idea is at most, again, a nice drasha for a rov in shul, or for a mussar sefer, but certainly not relevant to halacha. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:43:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:43:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.)" What you suggested is what the Ran says, however, the Ramban explicitly rejects this idea. R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? Therefore, he explains that by dinim d'rabbanan what is not important is the actual mitzva act, but the fact that you listened to the Chachamim and did not rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:51:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I referenced who explains the Ramabam. R' Meir Simcha makes a very different assumption. He assumes that every d'rabbanan is NOT necessarily the ratzon hashem and therefore by d'rabbanans what is important is that you listen to the chachamim and not rebel, the actual action is not as important ayen sham. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 12:42:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:42:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160607194229.GA27374@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:22:53AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : the only problem i have with their approach is that, had the Jewish people : been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies : their job was basically done -- since a billion xtians then took over, : and a billion moslems after that. the direct interaction of jews w goyim : in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to Unless you think our presence had a cultural impact that explains things like why the doctrine of trinity evolved and why they don't go on Crusades anymore. On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a :> tzivui? : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. Targum Yonasan ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be called on to serve. Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. Kehunah is a duty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:22:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> On 6/7/2016 11:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:39:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <575730E4.7050400@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :>So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > :>tzivui? > : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a > : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be > : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; > : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. > Targum Yonasan You mean, of course, "Yonasan", i.e. a version of Targum Yerushalmi that a printer mistakenly attributed to Yonasan. But of course we all know that, I hope. I just expected to see the scare quotes. > ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be > called on to serve. A kohen's shimush is the avodah in the BHMK, not anything else. It's (1) a promise, not a tzivuy or a nevuah; and (2) has nothing to do with "service" to anyone. > Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many > hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against > this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in > inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job > by definition. *If* it's a job, it's a job of avodah BHMK, and the pasuk is promising that if you do as I tell you then I will award you this prestigious job. But Rashi says the *pshat* here is not a job at all, but a status. He has to say that, because al pi pshat non-bechorim were *never* intended to be kohanim meshamshim. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:01:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573627.6060306@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" > as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem > lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". 1. I think you got that backwards. Ve'atem tihyu is the prat, and Eileh had'varim is the klal. 2. I fail to see the point you're deriving from this. How does this make it a tzivuy of any kind? However you read it, it's still a promise, a proposed deal, not a command. > As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. > Kehunah is a duty. Meyuchad is not a duty, it's a status. What one is meyuchad *for* can be a duty, as here (except for the problem that non-bechorim were never intended to do avodah), but the yichud is not a duty. "Mekudeshes" doesn't mean "obligated in the duties of a wife", it's the status of being dedicated to one man, though that status by its nature *comes* with those obligations. And "harei at mekudeshes li" is certainly not a command to do those things that a wife is obligated to do for her husband. It's predicated on an understanding that she *will* do them, but it's not itself any kind of command. But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:40:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 05:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries > : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. > > Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 23:02:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:02:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: The Megilla describes how Ruth sneaks in to where Boaz is sleeping and lies down at his feet and that Boaz woke up in the middle of the night to find her there. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (19b) states that Boaz had a bigger Nisayon with Ruth then Yosef had with Potifer's wife because Ruth was single and tehora (see Rashi there). I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? I would bet that the answer for everyone (male) reading this is no. The thought would not even cross our mind. So why does the Gemara state that this was a tremendous nisayon for Boaz? It's not like there is no yetzer hara for arrayos today, there certainly is, just look around at what is going on in the world around us and even within the frum community. And yet, IMHO the average person would not see the situation described in the Megilla as a nisayon at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:09:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:09:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. Ben On 6/8/2016 8:02 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you > woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) > lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 13:01:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:01:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up Message-ID: in this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work in the long run. i wonder if the claim is true, and if so, how could there be a hetter for such a thing---multiples are riskier than singletons; i can't imagine that a posek could allow that jsut for budgetary reasons... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:23:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:23:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > > Even if that is true, why does that make it a big nisayon for boaz? It's either an issur drabbanan or doraysa for him to sleep with her. Why would he be tempted? He also happened to be an old man. If a woman came up to you and made it clear that she wants to sleep with you would you be tempted? Would that be a tremendous nisayon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:42:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:42:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] samael Message-ID: not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger of doing so? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:26:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:26:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] samael In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589BAA.7090905@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 03:42 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have > never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger > of doing so? One is not supposed to pronounce the name of *any* angel that isn't also a human name. As far as I know this is a universally-accepted rule. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 14:55:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:55:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608215544.GA2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:13:32AM +0000, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: : RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she : wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, : and never will be Chayav... I am wondering if the chiyuv of chinukh to follow minhagim may be more binding than any minhag itself. If she is counting because that's what women in her eidah do, poerhaps her post-bat mitzvah chiyuv is *less*. : To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here : regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman : geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, : Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh : haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a.] a : woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is : a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives : heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant : berakhot... And because "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" is a statement about HQBH commanding the tzibur, so there is no sheqer inan einah metzuvah ve'osah saying "vetzivanu". For that matter, how does making a berakhah on a mitzvah performed for chinukh work? And returning to the case of an edah where women are nohagos to count the omer, an Ashkenaziah would make a berakhah on a minhag too. On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote: : If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a : bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah : (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able : to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her : chiyuv-level not having changed. If in all cases, she is making a berakhah on the tzibur's command, and perhaps the over la'asiyasah is what triggers why say the berakhah now rather than some other time. I think the list of sources RAF provides speak more to what constitutes a trigger for saying the berakhah than what the berakhah is on. And lemaaseh, chinukh, minhag and einah metzuvah ve'osah are each sufficient for Ashkenazios. : ... [R Asher Weis] then explains as : follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action : (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the : result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to : achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting : avodat Hashem... Sounds like a sibling to the Brisker gavra vs cheftzah. Whether the gavra has to do the pe'ulah, or the tzotza'ah must take effect onthew cheftzah ... : My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a : mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the : mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a : maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is : definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan : counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira : (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) ... Yeah, but it's not only the child counting, it's the child's mind which knows the count. Kind of like the non-Jew made the maaqah, but on his own home! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:25:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:25:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the : government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not : knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. Many accuse the AhS of writing things that would to appeal to the govt censor. But not to distort the din, only in cases where he thought the readership would realize he was obviously doing so. Which means that the AhS can't be used as a ra'ayah, because those who disagree will simply say he *obviously* couldn't have meant it. But the idea that communal policy halakhah should follow the NIH (or your country's equivalent) recommendations because the alternative is chaos appears compelling. Assuming the poseiq things the gov't is being honest. : In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael : Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to : listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees : and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita... Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on their audience. Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently includes conflicting laws. : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo sasur cannot apply. Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 : R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to : explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim : d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do : the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that : whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we : keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. : : This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I : referenced who explains the Ramabam.... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 min. in). As is my norm, I add bits here and there. ... But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, neither to the left nor to the right"? 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between Torah and rabbinic law. 2- [My own addition] R' Shimon Shkop allows us to say the same thing, 180deg off. In Shaarei Yosher, he asks the question of why a sefeiq sefeiqah (a doubt added upon a second doubt) is ruled leniently. The Rashba (Shu"t 1:401) holds it's a variant on the notion of relying on majority... Rav Shimon explains sefeiq sefeiqa on other grounds, following the Rambam. Who said that a doubt in Torah law must be ruled stringently? It wasn't the Torah, it is rabbinic! ... So, rather than the Ramban's limiting the specific prohibition to only cases where we are certain about the realia, it's possible that we could limit the rabbinic enactment of ruling stringently on Torah law to have only been made about the other 612 laws. With the same consequent rationale. 3- Rav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (Meshekh Chokhmah, Devarim 17:11): A Torahitic prohibition describes something that is inherently wrong. The universe is made such that combining meat and milk is a problem (metu'af, meshuqatz). A rabbinic prohibition lacks that reality. Chicken and milk isn't inherently damaging, it is that it leads to error through habit or accident. Therefore, one needn't the same care when dealing with rabbinic extension as when dealing with the damaging or refining thing itself. 4- Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Qunterus Divrei Soferim): Of course there is a reality to rabbinic statements. It is all revealed from the Creator, all the Ratzon Hashem yisbarakh (the Will of the Creator, blessed be He). The difference between a derabbanan and a de'oraisa is the explicitness. Therefore it is less sacred, and violation involves lesser realities. A difference of quantity, not quality. Rabbi Rakeffet links Rav Elchanan's position to his belief in da'as Torah; both imply a belief that there is revelation of Hashem's Will today through the rabbis. 5- Shulchan Arukh haRav [another addition not in the lecture]: In a rare case of where the Shulchan Arukh haRav discusses the purpose of a law rather than just codifying practice, he discusses the significance of yom tov sheini shel galiyos, the observance of a second day of Yom Tov outside of Israel. He explains that there is no time in the heavenly realms. The supernal "Pesach" is not associated with any particular time. Hashem made a connection between that Pesach and the 15th of Nissan, giving us a worldly manifestation within time. The SAhR continues that the 16th of Nissan is connected to the very same supernal Pesach. The seder on the 2nd night is a manifestation of the same metaphysical reality. What differs is who draws down the connection, not what it is we are connected to. Perhaps this is generalizable to rabbinic legislation in general. This would result in an opinion similar to Rav Elchanan's in that it gives a reality to rabbinic law, rather than their just being pragmatics for how to keep Torah law. However, the opinions are also quite different in that it makes the rabbinic legislator a metaphysical engineer, building the reality, rather than a conduit of Hashem's revelation of that reality. And, to continue R' Rakeffet's thought, Chassidic attachment to the Tzaddiq is not the same as the Yeshiva World's notion da'as Torah. 6- Seifer Me'iras Einayim (SM"A, Ch"M 67, #2): The berakhah that Hashem gives to those who keep shemittah , that they will have sufficient crops in the 6th year for the 6th, 7th and 8th years, is only when shemittah is mandatory by Torah law. (I.e. when the majority of the tribes are in their lands, and therefore there is a yoveil every 50th year.) Today, someone who keeps rabbinic shemittah gets no such guarantees. 7- Chazon Ish (Deshevi'is 18, #4): The blessing did apply during the 2nd Temple and after its destruction, for the heavenly court fulfills based on what's decreed down below. Rabbi Rakeffet identifies the SMA with the position of the Meshekh Chokhmah, and the Chazon Ish with R' Elchanan Wassermnn's. To my mind, it's possible that his position is more like the Shulchan Arukh haRav. However, this explains why the Chazon Ish was so willing to be stringent when it came to keeping shemittah. Had he felt that the observance didn't come with insurance from the A-lmighty, perhaps he would have ruled leniently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:31:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589CB8.8080308@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 04:01 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > in this documentary > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is > claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few > babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work > in the long run. That only makes sense for women who are planning a particular size of family, and use birth control the rest of the time. I don't see how it could possibly work for women who never use birth control, and whose "plan" is to have as many children as Hashem sends. How could having more than one at a time reduce the total number of pregnancies? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 16:18:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:18:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160608231854.GC16414@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:40:42PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? : : "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. : For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* : anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". Which is why it's intransitive. I included the "Li" in my quote because the prepositional phrase was part of my point. "Lekhahein" is not the verb of being a kohein or being made a kohein, but doing a kohein's job. Also, Yeshaiah 61:10, "kechasan yekhahein pe'eir". Even any case, I found this in the Seforno on the pasuq: And with this you will be a segulah from among them [referring to "vehyisem li segulah" in the previous pasuq]. Because you will be a "mamlekhes kohanim" to understand and teach to the entire human species that all will call in Hashem's name and to serve Him "with one shoulder"... Which not only makes my diqduq point, he clealy speaks of a duty to actively instruct the world -- ROS writes "lehoros lekhol hamin ha'enoshi". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:23:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:23:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: R' Zev Zero wrote: > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand experiences with the job, too. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:50:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:50:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Authorial Programs Message-ID: I've been leading a chaburah studying the Minchat Chinuch. It's quite interesting trying to figure out why he dives into some topics in detail and others he says would be too long, or this isn't the place to discuss detail or he's "not holding" in it right now. Makes me wonder how many mechabrim have a conscious, programmatic approach versus a subconscious approach or no unifying theme. Anyone aware of any analysis? 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 Wed Jun 8 22:30:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:30:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* > a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" > on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) > The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only an asmachta. > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not > : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be > what > : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara > that > : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. > If > : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... > > His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This > would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on > their audience. > > Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently > includes conflicting laws. > That is not the Meshech Chochmas point. His point is that we as human beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the action. > : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why > : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the > : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, > : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast > : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the > : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. > > This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs > to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo > sasur cannot apply. > This is not the Ran it is the meshech chochma explaining the Rambam > Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq > de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. > ... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps > shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore > came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. > > > R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of > Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 > min. in). As is my norm, > I add bits here and there. > ... > But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic > law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, > neither to the left nor to the right"? > > 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made > the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the > case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between > Torah and rabbinic law. > This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the opinion of the Ran. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 22:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:34:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger nisayon then Yosef faced? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:22:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" is only d'rabanan. In other words, if one has a legitimate safek about whether he did a d'Oraisa, then it is a smart idea and/or a rabbinic obligation to resolve that safek, but he is not required by the Torah to do so. I don't know if the above is correct, but if it is then it could be very relevant to the current discussion. For example, a safek d'rabanan might be a sort of "sfeik sfeika", and therefore go l'kula. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 07:31:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:31:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cholov Stam Outside of the US Message-ID: <1465482641540.74929@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/hezpyyn Q: I am planning a vacation to some foreign countries, and I assume that since I drink cholov stam, I can drink the milk in the countries I visit. I wanted to double-check with you, just in case. (A consumer's question) A: It's a good thing that you contacted us! The heter of cholov stam, which was explained in the previous installment of Halcha Yomis, only pertains to countries which have adequate dairy regulations. The OU's poskim have ruled that European Union nations and other countries with well-enforced dairy regulations qualify for the heter of cholov stam. In countries where such regulations are lacking or are poorly enforced, milk remains prohibited as cholov akum and requires on-site kashrus supervision in order to be permissible. To inquire about a specific destination please contact the OU via kosherq at ou.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:43:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AAB7.5050807@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 09:22 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" > is only d'rabanan. See Shev Shmaatsa at great length on this question. I don't remember his conclusion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 09:24:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:24:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160609162401.GB31542@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowlderized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Second, being gadol hador just makes it worse. Kol hagadol mechaveiro yitzro gadol heimenu. (An idea with way too much evidence in support in the newspapers. Not the drequency of the stories, it's still man-bites-dog. But the things religious people and other role models are caught doing that most of us aren't tempted to do....) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AA0E.60404@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 05:23 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Zero wrote: > > > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. > > I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. > > Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. > "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" > > Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand > experiences with the job, too. It was expected that all of Shevet Levi would devote themselves to learning, since they had nothing else to do, and since they got in that position in the first place mostly by dint of having already been the Torah-learning class in Mitzrayim (which role they got simply by staying in the beis medrash when everyone else ran out to do their civic duty) it was natural that they would continue. Thus it was expected that they would be prominent in the Sanhedrin ("uvasa el hacohanim haleviyim") and "yoru mishpatecha leyaacov". But there was no requirement on any individual Cohen or Levi to do so; they were given land for farming around each of their cities, and by the late 2nd bayis it appears that most cohanim, or at least a large proportion of them, were amei ha'aretz, and this did not make them less Cohanim. From this I conclude that Torah is not part of the job, but rather something to do when you're *not* on the job. The actual job of kehuna was a well-paid sinecure that Hashem gave them so they would have the time to do this other thing on their own, much as one is supposed to let a Talmid Chacham sell his goods first in the market, so he can get out of there and back to his "hobby". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:08:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:08:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Message-ID: <000001d1c250$098a3600$1c9ea200$@actcom.net.il> Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. She was not a stranger accosting him on the street, she was not a work colleague (with whom there are certain professional boundaries) nor was she the girl at the checkout counter. (Platonic relationships had not been invented yet-yes, I'm being sarcastic. There is probably no such thing as a truly platonic relationship between a straight man and a straight woman, which is why we are enjoined to be tznu'im. En apotropus le'arayot, remember?) His own wife had died a couple of months before (at the start of the barley harvest) which probably meant he was lonely and certainly meant that involvement with Rut would not have been an emotional betrayal of his wife. It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. It was highly unlikely that anyone would have known about a one-time liaison between them, so there would have been no hillul haShem, and Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 07:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:30:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, Some want to distinguish between different types of safek 1) safek in the :metziut" 2) safek in the din 3) machloket poskim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 10:25:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:25:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] temimos re: last day of shavuos Message-ID: <20160610172550.NHHT21830.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> I was doing some learning with a Kollel guy in a chabura about s'firas ha'omer, and I asked RSM's famous question, pitting "tosafos yom tov" vs the minhag that the Taz mentions of waiting until the end of the 49th day to count because of "temimos." The Rav thought it was a great question, and he took it back to his Rosh HaKollel, who, among other things asked: if this is such a good kashya, why does nobody even bring it up for 200 years after the Taz? Quite "coincidentally", he ran into a 32-page packet, just produced by BMG in Lakewood, that is on this very question. So, for your interest and/or Shavous study, see , or https://www.dropbox.com/s/ig0jxw2ye3xlpjy/%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99.pdf?dl=0 (you can download it) Good shabbos and a gutten yuntiff! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 13:36:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160610203636.GA30587@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:30:15PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the : Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, .... This was discussed earlier on this thread, right before RAM's question: Me: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#03 the other RMB: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#08 :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 03:24:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:24:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20160614102429.GA26569@aishdas.org> I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that post-modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever know to be objectively true. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs... I think post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. However, I can know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. So, the folk there pointed me to Rav Shagar (Rav Shimon Gershon Rosenberg), a DL postmodern baal machashavah. Along the way, someone mentioned R/Dr Alan Brill's blog post of notes he made to himself teaching R Shagar's works. or . To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true to Ayin. Given their advice, and the hopes that I could find common language with the post-modern among my own children, I spent part of the "3 day yom tov" with R' Shagar. Given my opening rejection in post-modernism, as well as a couple of comments made by Dr Brill, I must admit I may not have been fair. Perhaps one of his fans is lurking on list and wants to clear up wht I misunderstood. As R/Dr Brill put it "The very question" in the prior sentence, not quoted, "shows that Shagar is treating postmodernism as an ism to adopt rather than the current condition of our lives like the prior existential-psychological era that we did not choice but were embedded within." R Shagar builds a case for the condition of believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. An inability to believe that something is objectively true into the belief in of an objective Ayin. Help? 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 Tue Jun 14 14:10:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:10:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 16:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:00:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <598c06.3f27511.4491e6a3@aol.com> [1] From: Micha Berger via Avodah Subject: Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? [--R' Marty Bluke] I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowdlerized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org [2] From: Simi Peters via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. .... It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. ....Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters [3] From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah Subject: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth >>I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her?<<[--R' Marty Bluke] As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. .... So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love...lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana >>>>> [1] Over the years I too have wondered about the use of the word "margalosav" instead of "raglosav" and came to a similar conclusion to RMB's, that is, since "margolios" are pearls, the pasuk might be talking about the family jewels. However I did not assume that Rus /actually/ uncovered Boaz in that way but rather, that uncovering his feet was a way to hint to him that he should uncover something else -- not that night, but in due course. That he should act as her goel, that he should marry her and have children with her. [2] Yes, Boaz liked her and admired her but when Chazal say that the evening was a great nisayon for him they are clearly saying that on that night, he was attracted to her and had the desire and opportunity to sin. The nisayon was much more than "he didn't want to hurt her feelings." And she wasn't so "lonely and socially isolated"-- she could easily have married a much younger man, as Boaz says when he speaks of her great chessed in approaching him instead of going after the bachurim. [3] The idea that he was "deeply in love with her" is a stretch but yes, he clearly had feelings for her. Until that night I would say his feelings were mainly protective and paternal -- he always called her "biti, my daughter" -- but that night, under those circumstances, a yetzer hara was aroused that does not seem to have been there before. After all, months had passed and he had not suggested marriage, which was the very reason Naomi resorted to such an unconventional strategy. [4] I want to add one more point, which is that not all old men are the same. R' MBluke started this thread by asking why this should be such a nisayon when Boaz was "the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man." That the Gadol Hador could be overtaken by illicit desires we already know from many previous incidents involving Yehuda, Shimshon, Dovid Hamelech and others. As for old men, many lose desire as well as the ability to act on their desires, but we know that this was not the case with Boaz from the very fact that he did indeed father a child with Rus. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 15:49:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:30:47AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* :> a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" :> on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) : The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo : tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only : an asmachta. And later: :> 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made :> the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the :> case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between :> Torah and rabbinic law. : This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and : then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the : opinion of the Ran. What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling you why the pasuq "lo sasur" is not an azahara, and not a complete denial that the power to make a derabanan is from the Torah. As the Ramban puts it, shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on the pasuq. Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: :>: R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating :>: explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not :>: necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what :>: Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that :>: a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If :>: every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... ... : His point is that we as human : beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when : making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the : act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to : their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the : action. I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects their legislation. Or, ein hatzibur yalhol la'amod bam, which is the category all the MC's examples demonstrate. In either case, he talks about the difference between a deOraisa, where one might ch"v eat chazir because of a safeiq and a derabbanan where, as you put it "the value is in listening to their words". It is from that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. 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 Tue Jun 14 16:24:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:24:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160614232420.GB5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:23am CEST, R Arie Folger quoted Yechezqeil ben Buzi haKohein (44:23): : Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. : "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and : profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" RAYK (MiDevar Shor 16) writes that this is why we're called "beni bekhori Yisrael". The kehunah of the bekhor, to serve as either shaliach haMaqom to the family, or their shaliach before Him. See or . Also see Mal'akhei 2:7, for a similar definition of kehunah (WRT benei Aharon): Ki sifsei khohein yishmeru da'as veSorah yebaqshu mipihu.... RAYK's point is much like the LR's words when launchind the Noachide campaign: A particular task [is] to educate and to encourage the observance of the Seven Laws among all people. The religious tolerance of today, and the trend towards greater freedom, gives us the unique opportunity to enhance widespread observance of these laws. For it is by adherence to these laws, which are in and of themselves an expression of Divine goodness, that all humankind is united and bound by a common moral responsibility to our Creator. This unity promotes peace and harmony among all people, thereby achieving the ultimate good. As the Psalmist said: "How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 04:39:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:39:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon wrote: > So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was > deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it > only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his > wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world > to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at > his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 05:25:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:25:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I agree that "deeply in love" is probably be too much - but I think it is quite plausible that he was falling in love with her, whether he realized it before that night or not. It certainly makes it much easier to understand the nisayon if that is the case. And even if romantic love is much more emphasized in our time and culture than many others, I find it unlikely that it did not exist at all in Biblical times. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 13:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:44:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> I said that ?Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her.? This is not a claim that he was ?in love with her? (nusah 21st century) and is not the projection of a Western conception of Romantic love (nusah 14th century). Men and women have always been attracted to each other and loved each other which has, b?H, ensured the survival of the human race. Yitzhak avinu is described as loving Rivka imenu (after marriage); Yaakov avinu is described as loving Rahel imenu and Mikhal bat Shaul is described as loving David (in both cases before marriage. What is being described is an emotion, not an action.) And while Shir haShirim is allegorical, the allegory describes a profound, intense and sensual love. Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. Hazal do not find strange the idea that an old man might have sexual feeling and reactions. (Consider their description of David and Avishag in the presence of Batsheva.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From: Marty Bluke [mailto:marty.bluke at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:40 PM To: Ilana Elzufon Cc: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group ; Simi Peters Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon > wrote: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 23:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:39:55PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us : projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a : situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". When it comes to Yaaqov and Rachel, we find even more explicit description of a couple who who romantically in love. "Vaya'avod Yaaqov beRacheil 7 shanim, vayihyu be'einav kayamim achachdim be'ahavaso osahh". I think that academic claims of how much the human condition has changed over the millennia need to be checked against our belief that while TSBP evolves over time, halakhah does its redemptive work for generation after generation. Yes, many things have changed. The industrialist who relates to time with the linear instruments of a clock and day planner experiences something very different than the farmer's cycles of day and night and of annual seasons. Both of which are very different than the post-telecom experience of time which is dominated by events to respond to (phone, email, text/IM), more so than a preplanned schedule. But far more stays the same than would make for good PhD theses. 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 Jun 15 23:38:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:38:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. A ra'ayah for the Ramban is Yevamos 61a, which says that zenus (eg WRT marrying a kohein) is relations between two people who are not allowed to marry. Not all two people who aren't actually married. The Rambam (lav 355) cites the Sifra, Qedoshim 77. However, the Sifra inside distinguishes between being mechalel one's daughter lesheim zenus vs not lesheim zenus. So I don't get it. 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 Thu Jun 16 01:36:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:36:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They > try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak > metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". Truthfully, I never understood that whole story. Avraham was very well known generally and certainly by Avimelech and it was common knowledge that Avraham had a "miracle" son at the age of 100 but no daughters. How could this ruse have possible worked? Additionally, how could Yitzchak and Rivka have been meshamesh bayom where someone could see them? In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came after he married her and brought her into his tent. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Simi Peters wrote: > Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud > with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not > have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: >: The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >: any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >: malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. Even the Ramban who says that there is no technical issur d'oraysa, would probably declare this kind of behaviour is naval birshus hatorah and certainly not what the Gadol Hador should be doing. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 05:47:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:47:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gemara narrative Message-ID: <23bc4e6f392f4404bbfbd7d994e281a8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you are learning gemara and you come to a give and take where the hava amina seems strange (e.g. maakot 14a where the gemaras first assumes the rabbanan learn a din from lchaleik yatzah and ask where does R' Yitzchak learn it from. Gemara answers from a different pasuk and then asks why don't the rabbanan learn it from there. the answer is ein haci nami?! -- so why record the whole misattribution of reason, and how did they know/not know) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 01:47:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:47:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling > Ramban puts it, > shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah > aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma > lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav > As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power > to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on > the pasuq. > Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that > following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu > bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With your formulation that question still arises. > Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: ... >: His point is that we as human >: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when >: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the >: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to >: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the >: action. > I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el > Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects > their legislation. If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 08:10:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:10:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616151039.GF25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:47:01AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: :> As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power :> to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on :> the pasuq. :> Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that :> following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu :> bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. : The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on : lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With : your formulation that question still arises. With a mitzvah de'oraisa, oso lav is deOraisa. We do not cook meat with milk because of a derashah from a pasuq that is specifically about oso lav -- basar bechalav. With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav. (Earlier version had "bachaleiv imo", but mentioning bird milk seems too silly even for an imaginary pasuq.) I find the question cleanly -- and to my thinking, intuitively -- avoided. AISI, my read of the Ramban is an intuitive take on the chiluq. :> Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: : ... :>: His point is that we as human :>: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when :>: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the :>: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to :>: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the :>: action. :> I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el :> Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects :> their legislation. : If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. As I said, cart-and-horse. The causality is that the rejection is being offered "in response" (kevayakhol) to the law. Not that the law is to be rejected because they failed to respond to His Will. Yes, whether A causes B or B causes A, you still end up with both. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:07:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:07:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, : the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came : after he married her and brought her into his tent. I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" in differing ways. 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 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:12:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:12:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> What are the pragmatic reasons? In particular what happens when the reason for the derabbanan no longer exists. Is there a difference on the origin of the derabbanan? One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:58:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:58:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:12:28PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos :> as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans :> which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. : What are the pragmatic reasons? Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. OTOH, a gezeirah is pragmatic -- nothing happenms to you for vioolating it. The whole thing is a means of preventing ending up committing a real sin. Is there power to lighting a menorah of Chanukah, or did Chazal just have to pick /something/ to standardize how people fulfil the general deOraisa of commemorating a neis? Second day yom tov nowadays, does it connect to some supernal koakh, as the SA haRav says? Or is it a way to keep alive memory that the calendar ought to be al pi re'iyah? : In particular what happens when the reason : for the derabbanan no longer exists. The fact that the consumer is totally disconnected from shechitah and kashering nowadays might have rendered the gezeira of owf bechalav superfluous. People have little reason to confuse the rules of one with the other. But even if it's true that the reason stated in the gemara no longer exists, would anyone would say it is therefore no longer in force? Even though the motive is pragmatic., Is this baserd on the idea that we have to be chosheshim for unstated reasons and those may not be pragmatic? What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:10:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:10:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did sleep together. I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. Ben ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah > : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get > : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:07:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:07:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> On 06/16/2016 03:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >> : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >> : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. >> >> Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. > In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did > sleep together.I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they did more than that. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:18:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. > > One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual > damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of > that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or > psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite > taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. > If one assumes that the only problem is rebellion like the netivot then milk in poultry has no spiritual damage (the problem is gavra not cheftza) > > > : In particular what happens when the > reason > : for the derabbanan no longer exists. > > What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out > any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all > to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. > Not all takanot are to protect a deoraita. In any case the original question was why we are obligated by these takanot > > : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic > : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists > > Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention > anyway. > Not all kinyanim. More importantly not every monrtary takanah in shas has to do with kinyanim. There are loads of takanot for the good of commerce. In the change from an agragrian society to a business society to a high tech society much is no longer relevant -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 01:00:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:00:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:08 PM > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, >: the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came >: after he married her and brought her into his tent. > I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. > In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in > love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in > particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" > in differing ways. Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman (40 years old, according to Hazal). Rut is a lonely woman. She knows that she is a social pariah, looked upon with suspicion as a Moabite and not likely to bask in the social glow of Naomi's connections because Naomi abandoned them all during the famine and has very little social capital herself. This is why she tells Naomi that she will go gleaning where they will let her--she's expecting to be thrown out of some places. This is also part of the reason Boaz tells her to stay in his field--he knows the social climate of his town. And Naomi is extremely surprised that Rut has come back with so much grain; it means that someone has helped her--not something Naomi expected under the circumstances. Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). The halakha was still in dispute well into the lifetime of David (Yevamot). Tov (aka Ploni Almoni) is practically in a panic when he refuses the marriage to Rut--he wants the field, but no strings attached "pen ash'hit et nahalati." Only Boaz has the guts to champion Rut's cause because he has the authority to do so, has the social clout to do so, he cares about her, and he is touched by her trust in him and her courage in coming to speak to him at the goren. Rut's acceptance into society only comes with her marriage to Boaz and Naomi's rehabilitation with her neighbors only comes with the birth of Oved. [Email #2 -micha] I believe that 'margelotav' is like 'merashotav' (Bereshit 28:11). The 'mem' is not part of the shoresh and I don't think it is a pun. It may be an oblique reference to halitza and, by extension, to yibum, a delicate way of indicating that, while what Naomi wants for Rut is not technically yibum, it is the yibum-like 'hakamat shem be'nahala'. See the perush of the Malbim on the mitzvah of yibum, where he compares the mitzvah to the yibum-like story of Yehuda and Tamar on the one hand, and Rut and Boaz on the other. When a man says to a woman, "You could marry anybody. Why have you picked me?" that is a compliment, not necessarily a statement of fact. Part of what impresses Boaz about what Rut has done is that she is willing to marry an old man when that goes against the nature of things. As Hazal say on this pasuk, a woman would prefer to marry a young, poor man rather than an old, rich man (gold diggers aside). Rut has set aside her natural inclinations in order to do hesed for her mother-in-law. The words may also be read as an expression of Boaz's sense of gratitude and wonder in finding his one-in-a- million woman (and Rut is indeed exceptional) especially at a time in his life when he did not expect to marry again. When Boaz encounters Rut he has just gotten up from shiva for his wife. Either way, Boaz is not commenting on Rut's bountiful marriage prospects, which are pretty much non-existent (as I argued in the previous post.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 05:18:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:18:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: RnSP: Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as > the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her > mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite > and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because > it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly > idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). > Does Boaz's idealism extend to not quite grasping how different his attitude towards Rut is from everyone else's? His response when she comes to the goren seems to indicate that he had assumed she had many marriage options from among the younger men. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:04:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:04:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> Message-ID: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. Ben On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > > It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same > bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they > did > more than that. > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:57:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> On 06/17/2016 09:04 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Ben > > On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> >> It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same >> bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they >> did more than that. > Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira > it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? Yes, exactly. > That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. No, it doesn't. It has no connection whatsoever to that machlokes, and I'm astonished that you see a connection. *Everyone* agrees that there is no issur mid'oraisa on a man and woman sharing a bed, even if she's *definitely* a niddah, let alone if it's only a possibility. Everyone agrees that nowadays it's assur mid'rabanan, even if she's only possibly a niddah. Everyone also agrees that nowadays there's an issur yichud even if she's definitely *not* a niddah. None of this has any connection to the machlokes about what level of issur is involved in an unmarried couple having sex. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 07:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 17 11:03:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! Message-ID: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise thought of on our own. He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: 1. A town has a single shochet. A younger shochet wants to move in to town with the latest "shochet" technology -- whatever that is. The point is that he thinks he can provide his services more efficiently and at less cost to the community. In this case, the gemara tells us (al pi this rav-writer) that the beis din of the town can decide that the town can't support the competition, and weigh the fact that the older shochet might be put out of business, etc. I.e., the beis din has a lot of room to enforce a non-competitive monopoly here. 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- competition that might provide a better product is more important than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. The point that this writer was making, again, is that this distinction is not something we might have thought on our own. I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 12:47:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 22:47:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of the wheat harvest.) So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters -----Original Message----- From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 5:13 PM To: Rn Simi Peters ; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Marty Bluke ; Rn Toby Katz Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 14:01:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:01:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> Message-ID: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same >> gezira. > > Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:39:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I'm wondering if you considered the possibility that "lo bashamayim hee" might teach us that their legislation IS His will, by definition. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 14:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:35:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom _______________________________________________ It's complex! Enjoy http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:23:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allen Gerstl via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 70 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 R' Sholom Simon wrote: > 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a > teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks > he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage > competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out > of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- > competition that might provide a better product is more important > than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. . . . > > I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they > all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! > > I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this > idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Please see http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html The above issue is discussed at about footnote 22 (about three quarters of the way down in the article) and the Gemorah cited is Baba Batra 21b-22a I recall a similar question coming before the late Rav Gedaliah Felder, the posek of Toronto and that he told a group of us participating in a shiur that he gave. He had ruled as above. KT Eliyahu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:17:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:17:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> On 06/18/2016 05:01 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >>> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. >> >> Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > > That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping > in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate > any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion > about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Sorry, you're contradicting the very Taz you're invoking. He says *explicitly* that the issue he's discussing is being in the same bed, not anything else. Because as we all know it's forbidden for a man to be in the same bed as a niddah, even if they don't touch each other. And *that* is the question the Taz asks about Boaz and Ruth. If she was a niddah then how could they be in the same bed? And he answers that the gezera had not yet been made, so she wasn't a niddah. The same answer explains how Yehuda and Tamar could have sex; the gezera that would make her a niddah hadn't yet been enacted. The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything more into it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:03:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:03:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I believe it's a Chazon Ish. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > thought of on our own. > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:45:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: <20160619034555.GA2854@aishdas.org> Anyone interested in our perrennial about minhag avos and minhag hamaqom would likely be interested in R' David Brofsky's Teasers: ... Individual Customs The Torah teaches that in addition to the obligations and prohibitions imposed by the Torah, an individual has the ability to create personal obligations (Vayikra 5:4) or prohibitions (Bemidbar 30:3), known as nedarim and shevuot ... Family Customs As we shall see below, the Talmud teaches that one is also obligated to observe the customs of one's locality (minhag ha-makom), even if one leaves the place, until permanently relocating in another place. In addition to observing the custom of one's "place," is there a halakhically binding category of minhag avot, according to which one would be obligated to follow the customs of one's family? ... Local or Communal Customs As mentioned above, the Talmud (Pesachim 50a) teaches that one is obligated to observe the "minhag ha-makom", local custom. This obligation, as we shall see, is incumbent upon the residents of that place. Where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Passover until midday one may do [work]; where it is the custom not to do [work], one may not do [work]. ... Minhag and Pesak Halakhah In addition to being bound by local extra-halakhic customs, the Talmud teaches that if it is customary in a certain place to follow a specific halakhic view, that halakhic opinion becomes binding. For example, the Gemara[39] relates: ... Gut Voch! -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 Sun Jun 19 03:33:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:33:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and other differences between biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. <> what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to protect deoraisa laws. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 02:25:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 12:25:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> References: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:27 AM, wrote: > > > In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field > until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three > months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer > until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..* > That raises a whole other set of questions, namely when and how was Rus misgayer? Rashi at the beginning of the Megila claims that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women and Rus was only megayer later. Others claim that it can't be that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women so it must be that they were megayer them. The Bach for example states that Rus was megayer to marry at the beginning and then later was megayer a second time lshem shamayim. R' Shternbuch in Moadim Uzmanim claims that they were minors and therefore when they came of age could be moche and therefore Rus was megayer a second time (ayen sham). Therefore it is pretty difficult to tie the 3 months into the geirus. In any case the din of waiting 3 months is a din drabbanan of havchana, that you should be able to tell the difference between a child conceived as a non-Jew versus a child conceived as a Jew. For all we know this din drabbanan had not yet been formulated in the days of Boaz and therefore is irrelevant. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 21:27:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:27:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> In a message dated 6/18/2016 3:48:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, familyp2 at actcom.net.il writes: So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters >>>> In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:16:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:16:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160619121630.GC24863@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:47:45PM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley : harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they : won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end : of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of : the wheat harvest.) ... I thought "ad kelos se'ir hase'orim uqetzir hachitim" referred to the end of the overlap time. Which is how I got such a tight estimate. You appear to be reading it "until the end of the barley harvest, [and then beyond, until] the end of the wheat harvest." Which, despite needing the bracketed insertion, is quite plausible. But not the assumption I had been working with. In any case, even in a matter of months, we would still be talking about romantic love. To my mind, any couple in love before the love that that grows out of building a life together are experiencing romantic love. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:27:47AM -0400, RnTK wrote: : In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field : until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months : because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she : can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) The harvest season isn't three months, even according to RnSP's understanding of the pasuq. And that taqanah derabbanan almost certainly didn't exist yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160619120740.GB24863@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 01:33:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to :> obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH :> said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav : : The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and : other differences between : biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and : milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. At this point our topic is broader than that. We are back one step at whether lo sasur is a derashah or an asmachta. Yes, if every derabbanan is "lo sasur", then we need to ask about safeiq derabbanan lequlah. But if not, what is the source of their authority-- REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" Which then raised the question of whether following chakhamim actually is living according to the design of the world, as REW holds, or :> What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out :> any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all :> to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to : protect deoraisa laws. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. 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 Sun Jun 19 05:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:37:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:21:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> Message-ID: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing before marrying a woman. When people get married, they don't just sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Ben On 6/19/2016 5:17 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth > did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything > more into it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: < What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. > I am not claiming anything metaphysical. It just seems to me that not all rabbinical decrees are to help a deoraisa. I am certainly not baki enough to go through every rabbinical law but certainly some others include eruvin, most importantly almost all berachot, davening (certainly according to those that disagree with Rambam), shevat brachot. As I said before there are loads of decrees in monetary matters that are not just nezikin including prozbul, takanat hashuk, bar metzra. Again I would have to review the 3 Babas to come up with a more detailed list. Even in hilchot shabbat/yomtov we have candle lighting and other aspects of oneg, much of the seder, -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 21:15:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> <576766B2.50408@sero.name> Message-ID: <57676DE5.2000701@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 11:44 PM, I wrote: > On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the >> halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing >> before marrying a woman. > > There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. I just realised my meaning may not have been completely plain. What I meant by this is that they can have a chuppas niddah. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 20:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the > halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing > before marrying a woman. There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. The halacha in question is that when a woman agrees to get married she is presumed to have become a niddah, and must therefore count 7 days like any niddah. (Note that it's not the proposal that triggers this, nor is it her verbal acceptance, but her internal decision to accept it.) The Taz quotes the Maggid Mishneh that this is midrabanan, and says that this explains two problems we would have if it were mid'oraisa. One is Yehuda and Tamar: *not* how they could have sex, but how she could have told him that she was tehora, when by definition she has just become temeiah. The second was Boaz and Ruth: how they could have slept in the same bed. He says this *explicitly* so I don't understand how anyone can possibly misunderstand it. > When people get married, they don't just > sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and > finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Again, you are contradicting the very Taz you are quoting. He says in so many words that the problem we would have with Boaz and Ruth, if this halacha were mid'oraisa, is that she entered his bed. How can you claim that's not his concern, when he says it is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 11:42:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160620184259.GC12092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:37:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" : which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa I think quite the reverse. His saying that we follow the rabbis because not heading their advice would be stupid does not actually make the derabbanan mandatory. And I still think the Ramban is saying that the power of chazal to legislate is from lo sasur, but that does not elevate the product of their legislation to deOraisa. Thus his repeated reference to "zeh halav" in distinction to "'lo sasur' keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah". This makes a strong contrast to R' Mesamyah's position, "sheyeish bikhlal lav de-'lo sasur' kol mah shhu midivrei chakhamim..." One might employ parallel logic to REW's shitah, if it proves necessary. Remember that the Ramban's central problem isn't the same as the one which led us to this discussion. He is defending the idea that "lo sasur" is one of the 613, but (unlike the Behag) the particular mitzvos derabbanan are not each counted among them. Safeiq derabbanan lequlah is tangential to his main point, and more noted than explained. Also, I repeatedly contrasted the Meshekh Chokhmah's position (Devarim 17:11), that mitzvos derabbanan are "pragmatic", meaning the iqar is obedience, as opposed to conforming to Retzon Hashem, which I characterized as having metaphysical effect - or avoiding negtive effects. And since they're about obedience, borderline cases like safeiq derabbanan which are not rebellious can be meiqil, we do not have to worry about spiritual damage. If the mitzvah had inherent value aside from obedience, safeiq derabbanan lequlah would be a license to play Russian Roullete. I realized Retzon Hashem could also be framed less mystically in terms of desired ethics / relationship with Him, whether an asei to foster them or a lav to avoid flaws (a more rationalistic take on spiritual damage that is probably describing the same thing). Values and virtues. And in this formulation, there is no clear line between laws that Chazal would set up to implement a general deOraisa din (eg pirsumei nisa and ner Chanukah) and laws that implement His values. The broader mitzvos get kind of mussar-y / valu-ish. Like ve'asisa hayashar vehatov. On a related topic, 20 agurot from AhS Yomi. YD 201:206 (there are 218 se'ifim in the siman). There is a question whether a miqvah where most of the water is mayim she'uvim is pasul deOraisa or derabannan, or if even a miqvah that is entirely mayim she'uvim is "only" pasul miderabbanan. 3 positions: pasul deOraisa at rov, pasul deOraisa when there is entirely she'uvim, or never pasul deOraisa. The pesul derabbnan starts at 3 log is they were poured in before the 40 se'ah were complete; rov otherwise -- unless rov is deOraisa The Toras Kohanim learns the pesul of mayim she'uvim from "akh ma'yan uvor miqeih mayim" just as a maayan is made by G-d, so must the gathered water of a miqvah. But it is possible that this is an asmachta, or that it's a derashah about using actual tamei keilim but generalizing to she'uvim is asmachta, or... (See se'if 17) Now the relevant bit. In se'if 210, the AhS opines (nir'eh LAD) that because there is an asmachta, we cannot simply say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Thus ruling out the Rambam's idea that asmachtos are just mnemonic and polemic tools; he is saying they actually change the authority of the derabbanan. And if could change whether the iqar is obedience, limiting that possibility only to dinim derabbanan that have no asmachtos. IFF RYME buys into that idea at all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 08:31:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:31:48 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ie the current issue is about one who has specifically violated tora laws related to even haezer related issues. i wonder if crimes against secular governments would fall under the same type of reasoning , which as i understand , is only due to a 'bizayon hatora' . it would seem that any type of crime might fit that bill.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 12:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:45:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: , <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ------------------------------------ "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). 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 Mon Jun 20 13:57:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:57:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=24398 r reuven feinstein [around minute 35 ] responds on this tora umesora Q and A on how the haredi teacher should deal with Hallel on YH. thiswil presumably be more of a bedieved, since lechatchila schools that celebrate YH shouldn't have to rely on teachers that don't on there faculty, and increasingly may not need to.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 15:10:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:10:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> References: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160620221046.GA32539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:45:55PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is : not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). R' Shimon Shkop discusses this gemara near the end of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher. Leshitaso, there is a difference between a rebbe from whom "yevaqeish Torah mipihu" and learning from someone else, who could even be an Acher. But to my mind it is worth knowing and contemplating what our Sages said on Chagiga folio 15b. How could Rabbi Meir receive Torah from the mouth of Acheir [the former Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya, after he became a heretic]. Doesn't Rabba bar bar Chana quote R' Yochanan [in Chagiga as saying] "What does it mean when it says 'For the kohein's lips should keep knowledge; they should see Torah from his lips, for he is the angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts" (Malachi 2:7)? If the rav is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts, seek Torah from his mouth. And if not, do not seek Torah from his mouth." And the Talmud concludes, "There is no question this [Rabbi Meir studying under Acheir] is with someone great, this [the verse] is of someone of smaller stature." It is worth understanding according to this how Rabbi Yochanan spoke without elaboration, since he speaks only of the smaller statured, not the greats. One may say that we should be exacting in that Rabbi Yochanan said, "seek Torah from his mouth" and not "learn from him". For in truth, one who learns from his peer does not learn from the mouth of the person who is teaching him, but listens and weighs on the scales of his mind, and then he understands the concept. This is not learning "from the mouth of" his teacher, but from the mind of the teacher. "Torah from the mouth" is only considered accepting the concepts as he heard them, with no criticism. And it was by this idea that Rabbi Yochanan spoke about accepting Torah from the mouth [i.e. uncritically] only if the rabbi is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts. And according to this, in Rabbi Yochanan's words is hinted a distinction between who is of smaller stature and who is great. The one of smaller stature will learn Torah from the mouth, for he is unable to decide what to draw near and want to keep away. Whereas a person of great stature who has the ability to decide [critically] does not learn Torah from [someone else's] mouth. Similarly, it's appropriate to alert anyone who contemplates the books of acharonim that they should not "learn Torah from their mouths", they shouldn't make a fundamental out of everything said in their words before they explore well those words. Something similar to a reminder of this idea can be learned from what the gemara says in Bava Metzia, chapter "One Who Hires Workers" [85b]. Rabbi Chiya said, "I made it so that the Torah would not be forgotten from Israel." It explains there that he would plant linen, spread out nets [made of tat linen, thereby] hunt deer, made parchment [of their hides], and wrote [on them] chumash texts. This hints that whatever is in our power to prepare from the beginning of the Torah, it is incumbent on us to do ourselves, according to the ability that was inherited to us to explore and understand. And not to rely on the words of the gedolim who preceded us. 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 Tue Jun 21 02:57:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Potential Role of Orthodox Judaism in a "Fractured Republic" Message-ID: <20160621095708.GA20821@aishdas.org> [Rabbi] "Meir Soloveichik on Yuval Levin's 'The Fractured Republic'" or https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/meir-soloveichik-yuval-levins-fractured-republic ... Levin is undoubtedly correct about the state of American religion, both in diagnosis and prescription, and reading his book has made me more convinced that it is at this moment that American Orthodox Judaism may have found a unique calling. As Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik has pointed out, religious Jews have always sought to embody Abraham's identification of himself in the Bible as a ger vetoshav--a stranger and a neighbor, aware of what makes one different while engaging the world and, like Abraham in Canaan, speaking candidly and eloquently about why they are different. Last summer, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who is also a devout Christian, struck by how so many traditionalists feel that they now live in a culture not welcoming to them... As I argued in a recent symposium in Mosaic, the Jewish example can lead faith communities in a joint project to safeguard an America that will allow all of us to be "strangers and neighbors" --to fight for our religious freedom and distinctiveness, while also articulating a conservative vision of the American idea--and thereby illustrating how traditionalists can, in Levin's words, "live out their faiths and their ways in the world." 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 Tue Jun 21 14:13:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:13:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: <20160621211321.GA8586@aishdas.org> RGS posted a link to on Torah Musings: Jewish Action HALACHAH AND THE FALLEN RABBI: Q & A WITH RABBI HERSHEL SCHACHTER JA Mag | June 4, 2015 in Jewish Law By Avrohom Gordimer ... Jewish Action: Can one still follow the piskei halachah of a fallen rabbi? Rabbi Schachter: No. The pasuk in Navi (Malachi 2:7), as expounded by the gemara (Moed Katan 17a), says that a Torah teacher must be sinless and righteous like a malach (angel). According to the Torah, we only follow a rabbi's ruling if he properly models Torah behavior. If he is a ba'al aveirah, if he knowingly violates Biblical or rabbinic laws, he is not qualified to teach and render halachic rulings. When members of the public become aware of his improper behavior, they may no longer rely on his judgment for any rulings, unless it can be verified that such rulings were rendered before the rabbi's sinful conduct began. Since it is often not possible to ascertain when these rulings were rendered, one should ask another rabbi for a new pesak. Although people use [Marcus] Jastrow's [Aramaic] dictionary [for Talmudic and Midrashic terminology], and I was told that Jastrow was not Orthodox, that is different because that is an issue of translation, not pesak (halachic adjudication). For a pesak, a rabbi needs to consider all issues before him, and weigh and evaluate them. It is very different than mere translation. To issue halachic rulings, one must be part of the chachmei haMesorah (Torah scholars who follow the Torah's traditions). A rabbi who sins, especially if he commits a crime, is certainly not in this category. JA: What does one do with the sefarim written by such a rabbi? RS: They should not be used. Since his sefarim include his ideas and rulings, they fit into the prohibition against studying Torah from someone who is unfit due to his improper behavior. Any time someone writes a sefer, he fleshes out and resolves apparently contradictory passages. This is called being machria--providing one's own resolutions in Torah study. The type of person we are discussing is not qualified to be machria and, therefore, his sefarim cannot be used. If it can be verified that the sefarim and the halachic rulings were issued before this person's sinful behavior began, only then can they be relied upon and quoted. JA: Can we/should we continue to cite divrei Torah in his name? RS: We are not allowed to do so. The gemara (Avodah Zarah 35b) says that if a rabbi violates halachah, one cannot say divrei Torah in his name. The statements found in the Talmud in the name of Elisha Ben Abuya were made when he was still committed to Torah observance and belief (see Tosafot, Sotah 12b). If it would appear that the books and articles of the fallen rabbi were written before he began his sinful behavior, they may be used. ... This follows something we've noticed about RHS's position in the past. He holds that pesaq involves the poseiq's full Weltenschaung. To the extent that someone should be looking to posqim from his own camp in particular. >From Kol haMevaser (a school machashav newspaper from YU), 2010, by "Staff" http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-rabbi-hershel-schachter An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter ... Who is qualified to give a pesak Halakhah (halakhic ruling)? What makes his ruling binding upon a large group of people? ... A person has to have a strong tradition in Torah logic. Common sense has its own system of logic and so does Halachah. And to know Talmudic, halachic logic, you have to be learned in all areas of Torah. A posek cannot "specialize" in one area of Halachah alone. In order to be an expert in medical Halachah, you have to know Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohoros, because everything in Halachah is interconnected and interrelated. ... Which characteristics should a person look for when choosing a personal/family posek? Is it appropriate to choose one posek for one area of Halakhah and another for a different area? Is it problematic, halakhically or otherwise, for someone to ask she'eilot to a rabbi other than the leader of his or her shul/kehillah? The Mishnah says "aseh lecha rav" - you have to pick a rav to paskn all of your she'eilos. He has to first and foremost be very knowledgeable.... Second, he has to be humble. The Gemara says that we paskn like the Beis Hillel against the Beis Shammai, because, among other reasons, the Beis Hillel were more humble than the Beis Shammai... He also has to be an honest person. Sometimes you have a rabbi who is a politician and says one thing to one person and another thing to a different person, giving everyone the answer that he wants to hear. That is obviously inappropriate. Finally, he must be a yere Shamayim (God-fearer). The Gemara talks about why the pesakim of talmidei chachamim are binding and says that it is because "sod Hashem li-yere'av" - God gives the secrets of understanding the Torah to those who fear Him. Usually, we assume that the more learned one is, the more yir'as Shamayim he has. If, however, the rabbi of my choice is very learned but seems, unfortunately, to lack yir'as Shamayim, he is not ra'ui (worthy) to receive divine assistance in figuring out what the dinim are. And one off-topic teaser: What does it mean that koah de-hetteira adif (the power of permissibility is greater) and how does one apply that rule? How does this principle accord with concepts like ha-mahamir, tavo alav berakhah (blessing should descend upon the stringent) and yere Shamayim yetse yedei sheneihem (a God-fearer tries to fulfill both)? When, if ever, is it a good idea to take upon oneself a personal humra (stricture)? (REMT already posted the same answer here years ago...) Also, there is , which RET brought to the chevrah's attention in Feb 2014 and RAM transcribed parts of. But then we were talking about that shiur's primary subject -- "Da'as Torah - What are its Halachic Parameters in Non-Halachic Issues?" 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 Wed Jun 22 00:56:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:56:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: <> If I read ir correctly this is from 2008 (not that the halachot have changed). In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. Today with the abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 09:25:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:25:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes. Now that makes sense in a neoplatonic framework, but it needs a new foundation today. This is a particular issue because in Ish HaHalacha RYBS describes these same ideas as a priori categories, and a good Kantian would attribute a priori categories, not to an objective realm, but to the structure of human thought. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 12:54:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:54:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: , <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) Kol tuv Joel rich Sent from my iPad On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: I've been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 22 14:55:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:55:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: I read it. It?s very good, and it?s what prompted me to reread Uvikashtem Misham. It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious justification. The book you cited is RYB?s exposition of the Rambam?s views, but UM is his exposition of his own views. Those are the views that require justification. DR > On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > > You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: > aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan > > This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) > Kol tuv > Joel rich > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: > >> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. >> >> Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? >> >> David Riceman >> _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Jun 22 19:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:24:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <576B485F.8020001@sero.name> On 06/22/2016 05:55 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: > It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use > neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious > justification. Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they make testable claims that can be refuted? If you mean merely that it's no longer fashionable, why should that matter? We Jews have never let fashion dictate our philosophies, and why should we? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 03:29:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:29:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20160623102930.GA24267@aishdas.org> [I also address Zev's question in this post. If yuou are only interested in that, scrol down to the line of """"""...) On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:25:01PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes : from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes... From: http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia , where I complained more of the Rambam's placing knowledge as more central to human redemption than ethic. I also noted indication that RYBS understood the Rambam differently. I simply didn't understand how, given the citations I quoted. In "Text & Texture", the RCA blog, R' Alex Sztuden suggests answers from R' JB Soloveitchik's writings to questions given on R' Soloveitchik's 1936 final exam in Jewish Philosophy. (Thereby showing that these questions were ones R' Soloveitchik considered during much of his life.) The first question, which had two parts: I.a. What is the basic idea of the "Intellectualist Theory" of the religious act? In Halakhic Mind (41-43), the Rav distinguishes between 3 different views of emotional states (and by implication, of religious states): 1. Emotions are non-cognitive. They do not express any facts or statements about the world. In a footnote, the Rav cites Hume as a typical example of this view: "Hume denied the intentional character of our emotional experiences: `A passion is an original existence...and contains not any representative quality which renders it a copy of any other existence or modification. When I am angry, I am actually possessed with the passion, and in that emotion have no more a reference to any other object, than when I am thirsty, or sick or five feet tall...'" (116, footnote 49). 2. Emotions have a cognitive component. In fact, "every intentional act is implicitly a cognitive one...by way of simple illustration, the statement `I love my country' may be broken down into three components: I. There exists a country - predication; II. This object is worthy of my love - valuation; [and] III. I love my country - consummation of the act." (43). According to the Rav, I. ("There exists a country") is a statement of fact that is in effect contained by and in the emotion. Emotions are not irrational outpourings of the heart. They make claims about the world. 3. Emotions are cognitive, but they are confused ideas. This is the Intellectualist Theory of Emotions (and religious states). "Of course, the intellectualistic school, regarding the emotional and volitional activities as modi cogitandi, had to admit some relationship between them and the objective sphere. Owing, however to the contempt that philosophers and psychologists had for the emotional act which they considered an idea confusa..." b. What are the conclusions? Criticism. The intellectualist theory correctly perceived that emotions were cognitive, but incorrectly assumed that they were inferior forms of cognition, confused ideas. For the Rav, all psychic states are intentional, and religious acts therefore contain a cognitive component, subject to elaboration, refinement and critique on its own terms. In RYBS's understanding of the Rambam, the line I am making between perfection of virtue and perfetion of knowledge simply isn't there, or is at best blurry. Which is implied by the use of the word da'as in naming "hilkhos dei'os". And yet in my blog post, I have all that counterevidence. Like the beginning of the Moreh, where he talks about the need for moral and emotional perfection being a consequence of the eitz hada'as, inferior to the prior bechitah based on emes alone, or his ranking of human perfections at the close of the Moreh, his comparing Aristo to prophets, etc... In his interview with R/Dr Alan Brill, it appears that R/Dr Lawrence Kaplan, who produced the book built from RYBS's notes on the Moreh, doesn't see RYBS's take in the Rambam aither. From or https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/rav-soloveitchik-on-the-guide-of-the-perplexed-edited-by-lawrence-kaplan Hermann Cohen's modern reading of Maimonides as ethical and Platonic was instrumental in the 20th century return to Maimonides and especially Soloveitchik's understanding of Maimonides. This lectures in this volume show how Soloveitchik both used and differed with Cohen. ... Kaplan notes that Soloveitchik's readings of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas are "highly controversial" meaning that they are less confrontations with the texts of those thinkers and more the reception and rejection as found in early 20^th century thinkers. His German Professors considered idealism as superseding the classics and Russell considered science and positivism as superseding the ancient. For these works, Maimonides was relegated to the medieval bin. Soloveitchik was going to save the great eagle. ... For Soloveitchik concern for others and responsibility for fellows as hesed is the inclusion of the other in the cosmic vision. Just as God is inclusive of the world and knows the world because it is part of Him, the Talmud scholar knows about people through his universal understanding. Kaplan points out how this is completely the opposite of Jewish thinkers such as Levinas where you actually confront the other and through the face of a real other person gains moral obligation. (I am certain that Soloveitchik pantheistic-Idealist view of ethics will elicit some comments. ) ... 2) Could you elaborate on the claim that Maimonides considers Halakhah as secondary to philosophy? How does R. Soloveitchik counter this approach? This is an old objection to Maimonides. The claim is that Maimonides follows Aristotle in maintaining that knowledge is superior to morality, both moral virtue and moral action, and, furthermore, in arguing that only intellectual knowledge possesses intrinsic value, while morality possesses only instrumental worth, serving only as a steppingstone to attaining intellectual perfection. From this it would follow that Halakhah, dealing with action, is of lesser worth than science, and that Talmud Torah, that is, the study of Halakhah, is inferior to the study of the sciences. The Rav--inaccurately by the way--quotes Graetz as stating that Maimonides in the Guide "sneered at halakhic scholarship." The Rav counters this objection by claiming that Maimonides distinguishes between two stages of ethics: pre-theoretical ethics, ethical action that precedes knowledge of the universe and God, and post-theoretical ethics, ethical action that follows upon knowledge of the universe and God. Pre-theoretical ethics is indeed inferior to theory and purely instrumental; however, post-theoretical ethics is ethics as the imitation of God's divine attributes of action of Hesed (Loving Kindness), Mishpat, (Justice), and Tzedakah (Righteousness), the ethics referred to at the very end of the Guide, and this stage of ethics constitutes the individual's highest perfection. 3) It sounds as if here Soloveitchik is just following Hermann Cohen. The Rav, as he himself admits, takes the basic distinction between pre-theoretical ethics and post- theoretical ethics from Hermann Cohen, but his understanding of the imitation of the divine attributes of action involved in post-theoretical ethics differs from Cohen. Cohen, following Kant's thought, distinguishes sharply between practical and theoretical reason, ethics and the natural order, "is" and "ought." For Cohen, God's attributes of action do not belong to the realm of causality, but to that of purpose; they are not grounded in nature, but simply serve as models for human action. What Cohen keeps apart, the Rav--and here he is, in my view and the view of others, for example, Avi Ravitzky and Dov Schwartz, more faithful to the historical Maimonides--brings together. For the Rav, the main divine attribute of action is Hesed, God's abundant lovingkindness, His "practicing beneficence toward one who has no right" to such beneficence. The prime example of Hesed, for Maimonides, is the creation of the world. This act of creation is both an ethical act, whereby God freely wills the world into existence, and an ontological act, an overflow of divine being, whereby God brings the world into being by thinking it. However, the Rav goes beyond what Maimonides states explicitly by maintaining that the deepest meaning of God's Hesed is that he not only confers existence upon the world, but continuously sustains it by including the existence of reality as whole in His order of existence. 4) Is this the basis of Soloveitchik's claim that Maimonides is a pantheist? I think he means "panentheist". But here we drift from the topic, so I am ending my too-length quote. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:24:31PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited : neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they : make testable claims that can be refuted? The law of conservation of momentum. Aristo's entire metaphysics is tied to his notion in physics that objects move when they are given impetus, and continue moving until the impetus runs out. Imetus is imparted by intellects. Intellect is what brings something min hakoach el hapo'al. Thus the Rambam's belief that the spheres -- the spinning transparent shells of quintessence in which the heavenly objects are embedded -- were intellects. Because otherwise, they would have had to stop spinning by now. And his identification of mal'akhim with Aristotle's chain of intellects, making them the metaphysical forces behind natural events and the metaphysics by which Hashem's decisions reach the world. But now we replaced the spheres with orbits, mathematical non-entities, the product of momentum and the gravity of the bodied involved. So yes, because Philosophy included Natural Philosophy, and mataphysics wend hand-in-hand with Physics to create a single picture of how the world works, Aristotilian neo-Platonism like the Rambam's philosophy did make testable claims. And those were falsified. 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 Jun 23 03:33:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: Chazon Ish Emunah & Bitochon perek 3 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Gershon via Avodah wrote: > I believe it's a Chazon Ish. > On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah < > avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > > thought of on our own. > > > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: > ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 04:45:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:45:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How would you analyze the amount of "bother" you should go to in Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? 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 Thu Jun 23 08:17:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:17:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <576BFD98.9040206@sero.name> On 06/23/2016 07:45 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in > Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to > get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the > benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether > the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 12:19:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:19:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning Message-ID: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the bracha before Krias Shema. The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved only through learning Torah. Without limud haTorah, any feelings of longing that a person may have for the Jewish way of life as practiced in the old kehillos of the towns and villages of Europe do not represent the love or fear of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Rather, they are mostly nostalgic sentiments, somewhat like that which is expressed by the song "Mein Shtetele Belz. " They have no real connection with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Such a connection can be achieved only through limud ha Torah. One cannot fear or love something that is only an idea. By learning Torah, we recognize the reality of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and, consequently, can achieve both ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem. Love and fear are really contradicting relationships. One either fears another, or loves him. Love draws one to something, and fear repels one from it. We therefore ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this tefillah that in our relationship to Him, He allow us to have both sentiments, that of our love for Him, together with our fear of violating His will. This is the meaning of v'ychad levavainu? To "fear" HaKadosh Baruch Hu does not mean that one must constantly tremble before Him. Rather, it means that one is to be afraid to violate His will. This is similar to the fear a driver has of going through a red light, which does not mean that he sits in his car and trembles. On the contrary, he can be very relaxed, while at the same time being acutely aware of the danger to his life should he go through that red light. This "fear" actually makes driving very safe. Similarly, we ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu to unify our hearts, l'yachad. to love Him, while at the same time, to make us afraid of transgressing His will. YL __________________________ BTW, I highly recommend the sefer Rav Schwab on Prayer. It gives many insights into our davening that I was most certainly not aware of. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 13:56:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:56:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning In-Reply-To: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> References: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20160623205631.GA15414@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:19:51PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments : on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the : bracha before Krias Shema. : The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved : only through learning Torah... Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The first Tablets were made by G-d, like the body of writing as explained in the Torah. The latter Tablets were made by man [Moses], as it says "Carve for yourself two stone tablets." (Exodus 34:1) Tablets are things which cause standing and existence, that it's not "letters fluttering in the air." Since they were made by Hashem, they would stand eternally. But the second ones, which were man-made, only exist subject to conditions and constraints. The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was a symbol and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the Torah [since]. Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone Tablets", so too it is advice for all who receive the Torah. Each must prepare Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word of Hashem. According to his readiness in preparing the Tablets, so will be his ability to receive. If in the beginning or even any time after that his Tablets are ruined, then his Torah will not remain. This removes much of Moses' fear, because according to the value and greatness of the person in Awe/Fear of Hashem and in middos, which are the Tablet of his heart, this will be the measure by which heaven will give him acquisition of Torah. And if he falls from his level, by that amount he will forget his Torah, just as our sages said of a number of things that cause Torah to be forgotten. About this great concept our sages told us to explain the text at the conclusion of the Torah, "and all the great Awe Inspiring acts which Moses wrought before the eyes of all of Israel." (Devarim 34:12, the closing words of the Torah) This is in a long Litvisher tradition that yir'as Shamayim is a precondition t being able to learn. Not, as Rav Schwap is quoted here, a consequence. Although a positive feedback cycle is certainly a possibility. For example, from Nefesh haChaim 4:5: According to the vast arrangement of the silo of yir'ah that the person prepared for himself, it is through that arrangement that the grain of Torah will be able to enter and be protected within him, according to how much he strengthened his silo. It is [like] a father who divides grain for his sons. He divides and gives each one a measure of grain to match what the son's silo can hold, which he [the son] prepared beforehand. For even if the father wishes and his hand is open to give him more, the son cannot receive more since his silo is not big enough to hold more. So too the father cannot now give him more. And if the son did not prepare even a small silo, then also the father can not give him anything at all for he has no guarded place where it will remain with him. So too Hashem, may His name be blessed: His "Hand" is open, as it were, to constantly bestow every person according to his reward with much wisdom and extra understanding when it will be preserved by them and will be tied onto the slate of their hearts. Everything [is given] according to the volume of one's "silo." And if a person does not prepare even a small silo, which is that he does not, heaven forbid, have within him any yir'ah whatsoever for Him, may He be blessed, so too He, may He be blessed, will not bestow any wisdom at all, since it will not be preserved by him. For his Torah would become disgusting, heaven forbid, as our Rabbis, whose memories are a blessing, said. It is about this that the verse says, "the beginning of wisdom is yir'as Hashem," (Tehillim 111). This relates directly to another post of yours of quotes from RSoP. "Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah", thread at http://j.mp/28Q172y (or http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=R#RAV%20SHIMON%20SCHWAB%20ON%20WOMEN%20LEARNING%20TORAH ) In Feb you wrote: > The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. ... > A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim > because of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is > not the object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher > or scientist, but Torah is not philosophy or science. Torah is the way > Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us. > Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man, > can it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his yiras > Shamayim. Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud Torah, she > cannot utilize it as a means to increase her many ways of connection > to Hashem. And at some point I wrote: > I realize I do not have clarity on what RSS is referring to when he says > "yir'as Shamayim". > To the Ramchal is means by default yir'as hacheit, which in turn means > fear of doing the wrong thing because it's against His Will. (In contrast > to yir'as ha'onesh, fear of the sin's punishment, which is not real > yir'as Shamayim.) According to the Ramchal, also included in yir'ah is > yir'as haromemus. But those are all feelings. How could we make a blanket > statement ike "women do not learn to fear sinning or how awe-inspiring > G-d is by learning Torah"? (Whereas men can, or in True Scotsman style: > If a man didn't gain yir'as Shamayim, it wasn't *really* learning.) > So it seems to me RSS is speaking about something more specific. Perhaps > a relationship with ol mitzvos, which is why it is only generated by > a metzuvah ve'oseh performance. But even that would be iffy, because a > person can learn an emotional stance by imagining what it would be like > if... So that by learning, if the woman could empathetically imagine > what it would be like to be a man and compelled to learn as a mitzvah > in itself, wouldn't she still learn the yir'ah behind ol mitzvos? Now, that theory too has to be scrubbed. It looks like RSS is speakiong very speicifcally about fulfilling an obligation of talmud Torah. It's not a function of obligation in general (pg 300) nor of talmd Torah without the chiyuv (pg 274). So I REALLY have no clarity. 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 Fri Jun 24 02:14:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36431880-c73a-a5c8-e53d-25218ec972ef@zahav.net.il> There is also an ideological element to the reduced numbers. Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook strongly pressured the DL schools to not hire chareidi teachers (for obvious reasons). Ben On 6/22/2016 9:56 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. > Today with the > abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a > DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:17:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in Monsey. Ben On 6/23/2016 1:45 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in Eretz > Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get > birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit > of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah > is on the cohanim alone? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:01:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birkhat cohanim Message-ID: <> Certainly not a mitzvah in the formal sense of the word. However Rav Melamed explains that the chazzan (or someone in the congregation) calls out "cohanim" to signify that we wish to accept the blessing and only then can the cohanim begin see http://ph.yhb.org.il/02-20-07/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 05:20:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:20:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. > Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in > Monsey. > Ben The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. [Email #2. -micha] >> On 06/23/2016 07:45 Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? > Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > Zev The Haflaah among others. Listen here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/858947 Rabbi Ezra Schwartz-Duchening for non kohanim Kol tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 06:46:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576D399C.3070707@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 05:17 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. But only those who are in front of them, not those behind them. So I suppose any kohen, on any day, is only blessing half of Am Yisrael. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:12:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6deabf95-1f8d-0240-e958-c2518f9d8be0@zahav.net.il> On 6/24/2016 2:20 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one > stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. Because the people behind the cohenim are able to walk a couple of feet and choose not to whereas anyone else is considered anoos and therefore they are included in the bracha. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:17:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:17:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: >> How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in >> Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to >> get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the >> benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? >Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the kohanim. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:12:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 01:17 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >>Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > > The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer > Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the > kohanim. Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:10:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:10:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160624181048.GA19921@aishdas.org> In AhS yomi today, YD 240:34, RYME discusses the issur of listening to a parent who tells you to violate the din. One cannot discuss achei dokheh lav because the pasuq excludes such commands from a parent's authority. He ends: And memela, also in an issur derabbanan it is against the Torah. For HQBH commanded not to veer from anything the chakhamim say. So, those who say lo sasur is only an asmakhta for obeying a mitzvah derabbanan, do they say kibud av does include an order to violate a lave derabbanan? Or do they have a different sevara? :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:15:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160624181511.GB19921@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:54:09PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The : Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai : that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva See also AhS se'if 39, who says the same, but in more detail. The Lekhem Mishnah lmits the Machloqes to while the father is alive, saying that even the Rambam does not require KaVA of an evil parent fter their petirah. The Kesef Limits it to mishel ha'av, the son of an evil parent is not chayav lehachzir lo mishelo. And he believes Rashi explains the gemara in a manner consistent with the Tur's position. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:18:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev for a berakhah? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:22:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:22:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? > : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say > : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. > > Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev > for a berakhah? Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for women according to the BeHaG? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 01:54:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:54:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: R' Zev Sero asked: "Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed?" The Biur Halacha at the beginning of Siman 128 quotes from the Sefer Charedim that there is a mitzva on the tzibur to be blessed by the kohanim. The Haflaah in Kesubos 24b uses this Charedim to explain why it is prohibited for a non-Kohen to go up to duchen, He says that if a Yisrael goes up to duchess he is being mevatel his mitzva of receiving the beracha. See also the Minchas Chinuch 378 who quotes this Charedim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 25 11:05:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:05:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > explanation of the Rambam. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not > the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a > safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important . R. Avraham pointed out that problem of the authority of the rabbis is a basic problem and not just a difficulty with a Rambam and Ramban. The better the source of their authority the more it looks like a de-oraisa. The more one goes away from a de-oraisa the weaker their authority. His major answer is that every time there is a dichotomy the only way out is to find a third middle path. In general this replaces a binary decision by a continuum path. His standard example is the definition of bald. Someone who has one hair is obviously bald. It is also obvious that adding one hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. The conclusion by induction is that every one is bald. The answer to the riddle that the dichotomy of bald not-bald is not correct. Adding one more hair makes someone less bald. It is a continuum and not a binary. R Avraham (RMA) brought the Nesivos that also (or more correctly first) states that there are two types of violating a derabbanan. One is to rebel against the concept of derabbanan and that is lo tasur according to the Rambam (he also hinted that in the next shiur the Ramban will agree with the Rambam). OTOH if one violates the rabbanan rule "le-teavon" then it is a strictly rabbinical rule. Hence, Nesivot concludes that if one one violates a rabbanan "be-shogeg" one does not need kaparah. In essence he has done nothing wrong. The lo-tasur is only for rebellion and he has not rebelled. Note that practically there can't be rebellion and safek. In modern terms the netivot says that all rabbanan decrees are gavra and not cheftza. Eating meat and milk (cooked together) the mixture is prohibited. Eating chicken and milk cooked together there is nothing wrong with the mixture. It is rebelling against the chachamim to eat it on purpose (lo tasur) or rabbinic if eaten le-teavon. RMA pointed out that this again comes back to the problem of why to listen to the rabbis Note that the Rogachover holds that every mitzvat aseh is only gavra and not cheftza A second explanation was from the Rogatchover: The prohibition from the Torah only demands that we accept the authority of the rabbis. If someone accepts that the rabbis can make decrees but decides that nevertheless he can't/won't listen then there is no Torah prohibition. This leaves open the question how is it possible that one can accept the authority of the rabbis but still disagree with them. It seems to bring back the original question of what good is their authority if one need not listen, To explain this RMA brought a Tzlach. The Nodah BeYehuda states that sevara yields a de-oraisa only if their is a connecting pasuk. Thus killing someone to save oneself is a deoraisa based on sevara (everyones blood is equal). However when sevara creates a new category then it is only derabbanan. The classic example is berachot - eating without a bracha is LIKE stealing. So the rabbis based on this sevara required berachot. However, it is only a derabbanan since one is not actually stealing. (answers a question of the Pnei Yehoshua). Similarly for something to be a Torah law there has to be both a commandment and a content. In order for something to be a de-oraisa it needs BOTH a source and content. So violating shabbat is one prohibition even though there are many pesukim since the content is the same. OTOH "lav she-be-chlalot" has only one pasuk but many contents and so also there is no punishment. According to Rambam anything no explicit in the Torah has no punishment when learned from derashot. So the prohibition of "Lo Tasur" gives a generalization that there is a commandment to listen to the rabbis. The rabbis applied to this to various cases but this is no longer explicit in the pasuk and so no longer a de-oraisa. This is different than "lifne iver" where giving bad advice is an example of the pasuk and so from the Torah. In summary there are 3 types of derashot 1) examples not explicit in the pasuk - clasical example is neder. The Torah says one can't violate one's neder. Hoever the individual person decides the specific application 2) Asmachta (some meforshim) - just a help to memory. Ritva argues that some asmachtot are really the intention of the pasuk. However since it is only hinted it is a rabbanan and not a deoraisa i.e. there is content but no commandment. 3) Things learned indirectly from the pasuk there is a sevara (content) but no commandment. Finally RMA argues that finding a third/middle path is the only way out and so Ramban has to agree with Rambam. The arguments are more misunderstandings and semantics. Another example is Avelut. Rambam states explicitly that ivisiting the avel or making the kallah happy rabbinic. He the quotes the pasuk of "ve-ahavta le-reacha komecha" . This eems to be self-contradictory. The answer is the same as for "Lo Tasur". There is content but no explicit commandment and so it is rabbinic even though hinted in the pasuk. Someone who "loves" (not romantic) the Kallah but doesnt make her happy fulfills the Torah obligation but not the rabbinic one. Someone who makes her happy but doent "love" her fulfils the rabbinic command but not the Torah obligation. RMA then hinted to a wider application to general philosophical questions where one has observations and generalizations. How is it possible to generate a physical law (eg Maxwell's equations) when all we have are a finite number of observations. In other words are mathematical descriptions of nature inherent in nature or man-made. De-raisa is like observations we only have what is explicit. Derabbanan are generalizations. In both cases we need to find a middle/continuum path Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 08:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev >> for a berakhah? > Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? > In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for > women according to the BeHaG? In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: <576FFEA2.1070206@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 11:51 AM, elazar teitz wrote: > In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf > person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of > noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer > Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the > blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. Good distinction. Even awareness is presumably not necessary, since we bring babies to be blessed. But is this distinction really relevant to the question of whether to make a bracha? Where do we see that a bracha depends on a chiyuv to hear rather than merely to be present? Further question: is a bracha said on attending hakhel? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:13:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:13:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: <<< According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? >>> As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the latter than the former. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:34:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and then continues on the cruise. We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many days -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:32:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:32:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57709038.8010307@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:34 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for > someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every > day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a > difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and > then continues on the cruise. > > We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips > on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of > the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many > days How much more so. If one says it (without shem umalchus) every morning of the journey, even at a hotel where one might be staying for a day or two to rest, how much more so must one say it (again without shem umalchus) every morning if one is actually travelling at that very moment. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:30:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:30:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57708FB9.2050601@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:13 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be > blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: >> According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? > As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one > does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. > Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the > recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. > How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the > kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Our case is different, because once the cohen has answered the call and gone up to the duchan he can't change his mind. He's now obligated to bless. And if he hasn't done it yet that day then he has to do it anyway. > Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha > only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel > and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely > being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is > indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the > latter than the former. But we *do* have an obligation to say a bracha, which we are yotzei by listening to the baal tokeia's or baal korei's; if he has already been yotzei himself then he does *not* say the bracha again, and one of the listeners says it for everyone. Here, however, we are not yotzei with the cohanim's bracha, since it doesn't apply to us; we are not sanctified with Aharon's kedusha, and we were not commanded to bless but (according to this opinion) to be blessed. So if we're not yotzei their bracha why don't we say our own (or have the chazan say it for us)? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 02:10:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:10:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: In my original post I was too short. Therefore I will expand a little about tefillat haderech and my question 1) Rashi holds that tefillat haderech (THD) is requesting permission from Hashem and so can only be said within the first parsah. Bahag holds that THD is asking for protection and so can be said anytime up to a parsah before the end of the trip. Rosh and SA pasken like Behag. Rambam doesn't mention THD and meforshim try and explain why 2) Ashkenazim measure parsah as a distance (about 4km) even when using a car or plane. ROY translated parsah to a time of 72 minutes. 3) Kolbo says that one says THD only once a day even if one made a stop during the day (quoted in SA). Hence, MB says that if one is touring and stops every night in a hotel one says THD every morning with a bracha. Yalkut Yosef says that if one travels 40 minutes going to work and 40 minutes back they don't combine and one says THS without a bracha 4) Radvaz talks about an extended trip and says that even if one is not stopping in a "yishuv" and if if one is travelling all night he says THD every day but a bracha only on the first day. Pri Chadash disagrees says that one says THD only on the first day even if it is an extended trip MB says that if one makes a short stop then one should say THD the next morning without a bracha 5) As an aside RSZA paskens that one does not say THD traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as there are cities all along the way. Yalkut Yosef disagrees. RSZA also says that on a plane one should say THD shortly after the plane leaves the ground My question concerned travelling on a boat either several day journey without stops across the Atlantic or else a cruise with many stops in ports. According to the Pri Chadash one certainly doesn't say THD after the first day. However, even according to the Radvaz one might argue that there is no need to say THD after the first day since one always stays on the boat day and night and it is different than a caravan. Of course one can always say THD without a bracha but the question is whether one needs to. I have no surveys but in my limited experience people do not say THD every day on a cruise even without a bracha -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 06:17:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei halachot in monetary matters Message-ID: A new web site exists collecting piskei halachot in financial matters especially from eretz chemda courts in Israel currently 336 rulings with a search engine psakim.org -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 07:39:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:39:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Buying Sliced Watermelon Message-ID: <1467038393622.33144@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. I am preparing a picnic. Can I buy sliced watermelon from the supermarket? A. The Shach (YD 96:3) cites a concern that a knife often contains a fatty residue even after it has been washed or wiped with a rag. Therefore, if a non-kosher knife was used to cut kosher food, some of the residue on the knife would transfer to the food. Rama (96:1, 4) writes that with regards to fruit, we can assume that the manufacturer or processor has dedicated utensils. Even if the knife is not dedicated to cutting fruit, however, if large quantities of fruit are being cut or sliced, we can assume that whatever non-kosher residue was on the knife was removed when cutting the first few fruit, which are batel (nullified) in the majority of other fruit. One may, therefore, purchase cut watermelon in a supermarket or in a fruit store. The market would likely have dedicated utensils and in any event it is preparing large quantities of fruit. In a non-kosher restaurant or catered event, however, the fruit would not be permitted because the knives very likely are not dedicated and food preparation switches from one product to the next. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 13:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:55:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim Message-ID: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R' Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in "Ve ha-ish Moshe Anav m'od" from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Thanks, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 19:28:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim In-Reply-To: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> References: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> Message-ID: <5771E0DF.8050101@sero.name> On 06/27/2016 04:55 PM, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R? > Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. > > In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in ?Ve > ha-ish Moshe Anav m?od? from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Here you go: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19165&pgnum=207 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 28 03:03:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:03:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is dirt clean? Message-ID: If a Jew wants to eat bread, halacha requires a certain form of hand-washing, but that has nothing to do with this thread. There are also certain situations where halacha recognizes a certain *spiritual* uncleanliness, and requires a certain hand-washing to remedy it. Most (all?) of these situations are listed in S"A O"C 4:18, and include things like getting up from bed, exiting a bathroom, removing one's shoes, and others. It is noteworthy that this se'if begins with the words "These things require washing with water", as if to suggest that washing with other things would not be effective. Indeed, the Mishne Brurah #39 comments on the word "with water": > However, for tefilah - and certainly for learning Torah - > a mere cleaning is enough for any of these cases, as > noted below in se'if 22, in the case of one who gets up > from bed. And this is certainly [acceptable] if there is > no [water available]. However, removing the Ruach Raah > requires specifically water. ... But this thread isn't about those situations either. I am mentioning it only in order to clearly establish that there is yet another category of situations, namely the ones that the MB pointed to as being in Se'if 22. The Mechaber wrote there (S"A O"C 4:22): > If one has no water, he should wipe his hands on a > pebble or dirt or anything that cleans, and say the > bracha 'Al Nekiyus Yadayim'. This [procedure] is > effective for tefilah, but not to remove the ruach > raah which is on [the hands]. The Mechaber's phrase "anything that cleans", and his wording for the bracha in such cases, not to mention his comment about ruach raah at the end -- All these things make it abundantly clear that we are talking about *physical* cleanliness, as opposed to other kinds of cleanliness. And the Mechaber writes similarly in O"C 92:4, that prior to Tefilah, > One must wash his hands with water if he has some, and > if he doesn't have any [the Mechaber explains how far > one must go to obtain water]. But if he is worried that > he will pass the time limit for Tefilah, then he should > clean his hands with a pebble or dirt or anything that > cleans. My question is simple: Why is dirt in the category of "things which clean"? It seems to me that if I would rub my hands with dirt they would (almost always) be even dirtier afterwards than before. The only answer I can think of is that halacha considers dirt to be clean. Is it possible that the *only* uncleanliness that prohibits tefila are the things listed in OC 4:21 - touching covered parts of one's body, etc. (and perhaps other specific listings elsewhere) Here's a practical situation. Suppose someone is at work, and it is close to Mincha time. So he goes to the bathroom, exits, and does the best washing you can imagine, with whatever chumros you like. Then he realizes he has a bit more time until mincha, so he decides to go back to work, but with constant attention to being very careful not to scratch his head, or touch under his shirt, or any of the things that would require him to wash again before mincha. But his job is a butcher, and he will get his hands bloody. Or he is a painter or printer, and he'll get paint or ink on his hands. Or he is a farmer or construction worker, and he'll get actual earth on his hands. And now it is time for mincha. Are his hands halachically clean or dirty? If you tell me that they are dirty, how does it help to wipe his hands in the dirt? I have more questions on this topic, but I hope this will get the ball rolling. Thank you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:32:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rishon vs Acharon and other kelalei pesak Message-ID: <20160629193257.GA12798@aishdas.org> There are some interesting se'ifim toward the end of AhS YD 242 that touch on a number of our perennial topics. Se'ifin 58-62 discuss the din of whether a rav can pasqen on something that someone else already pasqened on, and if so, is a sho'el allowed to ask the second rav the self-same question. In 59 he opines (nir'eh LAD) that the Raavad, Ramban, Rashba, Rosh and Ran (AZ 7) all say the issue is not the kavod of the first talmid chakham, but because once he prohibits, chal alei chatichah de'isura [CACD]. Therefore, if the first TC made an error in a zil qeri bei rav matter, it's like someone who avoids a piece of shuman thinking it's cheilev, and there is no CACD. However, ther 2nd TC *may* say "I think it's allowed, but I will not permit something R' XYZ already prohibited." If a talmid chakham was matir and no one acted on it, another TC can be machmir. But if it was acted upon, he can't. I do not see an explanation why. Later we learn that a TC of an obviously higher caliber, or a moreh de'asra in his own town, can indeed overrule an earlier TC's ruling. Another interesting topic is 35 -- if acharonim disagree with a rishon whose opinion was available in their day, we follow the acharonim. If the rishon was not (eg Me'iri), we say that perhaps the acharonim would have ruledd differently had they seen it. But you cznnot rule against a ga'on. Yeish omerim you never hold like acharonim against rishonim, but yesh lehisyasheiv bazeh. However, if the rishon find one position compelling (yakhol lehachira) he may pasqen as he sees (except against geonim). 36: Just as it is assur to permit the prohibited, so too it is assur to prohibit the permitted. Even if there is no hefseid, or the item is owned by a non-Jew. However, safeiq and being chosheish for the opinoin of many rishonim is sufficient motive . According to the Shakh this is because "shelo ya'asu agudos agudos." In general the AhS refers to the Shakh's qunetrus on kelalei hapesaq a lot. Even though on a couple of things he holds like the Rama over the Shakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:46:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yanik Message-ID: <20160629194624.GA12037@aishdas.org> AhS YD 244 is about vehadarta penei zaqein -- both someone chronologically old (as long as he is not a rasha or an am ha'aretz who therefore ends up non-observant by ignorance), and a talmid chakham. In se'if 3 he says that a zaqein for the sake of this mitzvah would even include a TC who is a yaniq. Not a qatan. So what's a yaniq? Someone 17 or younger. Are there any mitzvos for which 17 yrs old is a significant age? The ony reference I could dream up is R' Elazar ben Azaria, who was 17, was supposed to be getting kavod (being nasi), and turned gray (keben shiv'im shanah) overnight. Problem is, he was 18 according to the Bavli; it's the Yerushalmi who has him becoming nasi at 16, and saying this quote at 17. And of cvourse the bigger problem is that there is no reason to turn the age REbA happened to be into a cutoff line. Can anyone think of something? 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 Thu Jun 30 02:10:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:10:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] meanings Message-ID: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or should you pick one? 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 Thu Jun 30 03:51:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:51:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma > before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities > with different meanings. (By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or > should you pick one? Another example in Hallel: ze hayom `asa Hashem, nagila venismha bo (is "bo" hayom or Hashem? Most translations seem to go for "hayom", but "veyyismehu becha Yisrael" in the kedushat hayom of 18 for regalim fits with "bo" meaning Hashem) My humble opinion: for pesukim, if there are two possibilities it's not by chance, and mikra lo yotze mipeshuto -- including all its peshatim. For tefilla, I'm not so sure, but I think you should probably pick one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:13:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:10:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma : before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities : with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off : or should you pick one? As per my answer to you at this week's wonderful Audio Roundup , I believe you *should* switch off. Poets make a point of layering on multiple meanings when they wish to convey a picture using al of them. I believe the point of ambiguity in tefillah is just so that you can emphasize different shades of meaning depending on what you want to way this particular time. (I accept tips for plugging a member's web site via Paypal. Contact me off-list. No, seriously, the biggest problem with RJR's Audio Roundup over on TM is that he tempts you with too many good shiurim for just one week of listening time.) There is a basic grammatical problem, two nouns, both the object of the sentence, with nothing indicating which is the primary object, which the secondary, nor anything connecting them into a single phrase that could be one object. Thanks to previous Avodah discussions, I have a list of ways to read "umasbia lekhol chai ratzon": - Pashut peshat [check your typical siddur translation] would be as though the pasuq read "umasbia' ritzon kol chai" -- leaving every desire satisfied. (Or maybe "umasbia lekhol chai es tetzono".) RYGB disliked this peshat because it's experimentally false. Many people die with unfulfilled desires. - Rav Schwab says that everyone is dependent on "yennem's" liking him for his parnassa.... Hashem provides this needed "ratzon". (RGD) RMPoppers suggests [on Mesorah] that "ratzon" was the very quality that HQBH is bequeathing, IIRC, something akin to granting "chein". - [T]he Malbim's pshat - Ratzon Hashem. (RYGB) [W]ould would work better if the pasuq read "... umasbia' lechol chei beratzon" .(me) - RAYK points out that without ratzon, goals and purposes for a person to persue, life is empty. So he too says that Hashem bestows ratzon -- but means it in the sense of having desire, not being desired/desirable. Hashem does us a tovah by giving us retzonos to pursue. Someone else noted the parallel in pereq 104:27-28 as an argument for what I called "pashut peshat": > Kulam alecha yesaberun / Eynai kol alecha yesabeiru > Lases ochlam b'ito / V'atah nosein lahem achlam b'ito > Titein lahem yilkotun. > Tiftach yadcha / Poseach es yadech > yisbe'un tov. / U'masbiya l'kol chay ratzon. > The whole string of preceding psukim in 104 refer to G-d's ability to > sustain the world in a very real and material way, not abstractions like > bestowing "razton". But I think that David haMelekh created the obscure phrasing because the real answer is "(E) All of the above". I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel beratzon..." works. When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase vehasheiv: - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, - ve'ishei Yisrael. Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to restore the BHMQ bfirst? Or do we pun on "ishei Yisrael" pretending it means "anshei Yisrael" but in a unique conjugation? But the question is how to find meaning in a pre-existing text under a new circumstance. Not multiuple layers of original intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:44:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:44:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9CWhenever_you_find_yourself_on_the_sid?= =?utf-8?q?e_of_the_majority=2C_it_is_time_to_reform_=28or_pause_and_refle?= =?utf-8?b?Y3QpLuKAnSAg4oCVIE1hcmsgVHdhaW4=?= Message-ID: We all know the minority report by Joshua and Caleb showers its praises on the land and counsels b?nai Yisroel to go up to it. The ten other ?spies? give a very negative report against the land and can see only giants, fortified cities and difficulties they feel are insurmountable. These ten men of small stature conclude their report with the following: ?And there we saw the giants (nephilim), the sons of the giant (Anak), from among the giants; And we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes and so we were in their sight. (Bamidbar 13:33). The Midrash states that at these words, God said: ?I have no objection to your saying, ?We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes,? but it is inappropriate if you say, ?and so were were in their sight.? How do you know how you appeared to them? How do you know if you did not appear to them to be angels?? (Midrash Bamidar Rabbah, XVL, II). This is a profound psychological insight. How many times we feel insignificant and think everyone else looks at us the same. Just because you feel inferior doesn?t mean you are. That?s the meaning of ?You?re your own worst enemy." Shabbat shalom. ri From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 12:50:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <577577ED.2090001@sero.name> On 06/30/2016 02:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. > Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to > say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) > > In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel > beratzon..." works. > > When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in > a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the > period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase > vehasheiv: > - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, > - ve'ishei Yisrael. > Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept > the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to > restore the BHMQ bfirst? I don't see the problem, or the "repurposing". The phrase means exactly what it always meant. The only change the bracha needed to adapt it to the new reality was the addition of a new request, to restore the avodah, before the request to accept our korbanos and tefillos. Once the new request is fulfilled, the next one won't be a problem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 06:57:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 09:57:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Navigating Kitchen Appliance Technology Message-ID: <20160401135835.593F217FAB8@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 07:39:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> Message-ID: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. -- 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 Fri Apr 1 10:44:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:44:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401174415.GA2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:28:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I think the real difference between the two cases is how deeply one must : dig to see the wires and the switches: In the floor mat all you'd need, I : guess, is to cut through a centimeter or two of rubber to see the wires, : while the motion detector would need a microscope and an engineering degree : just to understand what you're looking at. But even with the mat, no one : can actually see the electricity move simply as a result of standing on it. I think those two are different in kind. In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Let's say there was an unlit room at the end of a long hall, so there was no way to light it without chilul Shabbos. Would it be mutar to write in such a room? Or is writing assur, regardless of the situation? If a bug is born of eggs that are large enough to be visible, but happen to be hidden within uncut meat, is the maggot kosher? In the motion detector (or the fitbit), the change is not detectible by an unaided human, regardless of the situation. People cannot see the microscopic. (And yes, I realize that claim is true by definition of the word "microscopic"). The change is outside the realm of unaided human senses in principle, not in situation. If one looks through water through a microscope and finds water bears and other micrscopic bugs in it, does that water become treif? Is all tap water or distilled water in bottles that were open too long treif because one in theory would find such things in most water? (For a moment there I thought about mayim she-lanu, but then realized this would be a much more restrictive issur than that.) : There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, : but in my experience this idea is very new. Not even ten years old perhaps. Rav Dovid Lifshitz spoke about halakhah in general ignoring the microscopic some time between Sep 1984 and Jun 1986. The permissability of killing bugs that have no piryah verivyah on Shabbos (or of eating them) is miSinai. Or at least, as old as some pre-Chazal rav pasqened the deOraisa that way, since Chazal take it for granted. The real motive for saying halakhah only applies to the sensible is to find a new explanation for an old heter to avoid saying a din deOraisa is in error, even though the old explanation (abiogensis of these insects) was shown to be empirically false. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 10:57:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> References: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160401175728.GC2751@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 02:06:19AM -0400, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote: : And here's the link to the source sheet: : http://cdn.yutorah.org/materials/Source Sheet-510279.pdf RMT's discussion is of ex rays, and really focuses on whether the developing is koseiv. (Also, mesayeia, how often is it really needed, etc...) If anything, I would read him as assuming that the invisiable change to the film is mutar. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 11:18:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:18:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401181840.GD2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:01PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : Seems similar to an automatic watch, except for there being post-Shabbos : utility to the recorded unintentional-exercise-on-Shabbos data. Also, the automatic watch, becoause it is never allowed to run down, is never actually broken to need repairs. What melakhah would be involved, even if the winding were observable? (And I think in principle it is... one can see the spring and how tight it is.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 15:54:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:54:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: I wrote: > ... But even with the mat, no one can actually see the electricity > move simply as a result of standing on it. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think those two are different in kind. > > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible hypothetically, albeit not situationally? If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I missing something here? Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." I will concede that he clearly has some wiggle room there, and he doesn't specify why he is unsure, but I never thought that the invisibility of the electrons was an issue, since their power is so evident. Could it be that the tide has turned, and more poskim are looking at the electrons? I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 2 21:33:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, but in my experience this idea is very new. .... Let's say that there is a posek who rules leniently on these devices, and he bases his ruling on this principle that tiny things can be ignored. What precedent is there? What lenient rulings existed 25 or 50 years ago, based on that same principle? Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice and didn't mean to kill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:34:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: This is many ways similar to the use of electronic water meters on shabbos. The meter has no external display that changes and all it does on Shabbos is record how much water you are using. The Charedi poskim in israel have all assumed that it is absolutely forbidden. You can see the kol korehs here: http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2012/09/using-electronic-water-meters-on-shabbos.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:41:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I realise that I was a bit terse in my original question so I would like to expand on the halachic questions. After talking to 2 expert sofrim the story is as follows. There are 2 halachic problems with black on white (traditional retzuos): 1. Since the black is just painted on, the paint peels off leaving a part (even small) of the retzua that is not black. The MB is machmir that this will pasul the retzua 2. The KSA has a chumra that the sides of the retzuos should be black as well. The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the above 2 issues. 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't peel off or crack, it stays black 2. The sides are black as well. The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the gedolim today use black on black retzuos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 07:38:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 10:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57012B00.10604@sero.name> Another advantage of black-on-black: Al pi din only the loop that holds the bayis to your arm or head has to be top-side-out. The rest of the retzuah that goes around your arm or that hangs down past the kesher can face any way. But if you have the white showing, inevitably someone will come up to you tell you to turn it around or just turn it around themselves. With black-on-black this won't happen. -- 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 Sun Apr 3 13:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 22:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> References: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> Message-ID: <57017B0A.4040206@zahav.net.il> This could be different because even if you walk on grass there is no guarantee that you're going to kill anything. Whereas in today's digital world, you walk in various cities, you're going to activate some circuits somewhere. Ben On 4/3/2016 6:33 AM, via Avodah wrote: > I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always > been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you > might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice > and didn't mean to kill. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 13:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:02:27 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> References: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Message-ID: Date: Fri 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 EDT From: Zev Sero > Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? > Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? > If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. Oros Eilim Me'adamim are explained by the Yerushalmi to mean rams hit - whilst living - so as to produce bruising, which subsequently produced the 'red' skins, on being flayed.Rashi (ad loc.) appears to concede with that explanation.Lulei d'midtofino, I would suggest the redness was due to a tannery process, much as the old Yemenite Sifrei Torah were reddish [brown].(Note: Me'adamim is most probably a brownish red, as in Poroh Adumoh.) Dovid Rubin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 10:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar Message-ID: <20160403170927.74F6617FAFA@nexus.stevens.edu> Just like most other Bar Mitzvah bochurim, my son Mordechai Zev started donning his Tefillin a while before his actual Bar Mitzvah this past Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini, as part of his preparations. Yet, unlike most others who start donning Tefillin two or three months, or more commonly, one month prior to the actual 13th birthday, my son started wearing Tefillin 31 days before his Bar Mitzvah, an opinion not explicitly found in any early halachic codex. But to understand why, some background about Double Adars is in order... To understand why, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos! Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 03:17:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy Message-ID: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> By Dr Lawrence Fishman or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: In many academic circles, previous to the excavation of Khirbet Qeiyafa and its publication, scholars denied the entire notion of a centralized Jewish polity in the late 11th-early 9th centuries BCE. Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as some of the discoveries in ancient Jerusalem have shown that this view should be rejected.... Because of the [Bible's] presentation of [the history of this period] in quasi-mythic terms, it cannot be taken literally by historians. Yet properly evaluated it can and should contribute in broad outlines to the construction of a historical picture of our period.... The early kings of Israel rose to political power beginning with a limited territorial base later supplemented by military conquest. Saul's territory was that of the tribe of Benjamin. His son, Ishbaal (this name appears on an inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa), who ruled for a very brief period..., also claimed to rule over Ephraim, Gilead, the Jezreel [Valley], and Asher. David first ruled in the territory of Judah. His capital was in Hebron in the Judean Hills for seven years until he moved it to Jerusalem. The Bible attests to his beginning as a chieftain and traces the evolution and machinations that led to his kingship.... As David gained power and expanded from his Judean base, he ruled parts of what would later be considered Israel.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 04:13:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:13:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy In-Reply-To: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> References: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57039DBE.4010907@starways.net> Aside from his name being Schiffman, and not Fishman, I have to disagree with his identifications. The Iron II remains he's talking about are not from the United Monarchy. Rather, they are from the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement. And in fact, they *match* the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement, but do not in any way match the United Monarchy, which is why he had to give the caveat that: /The elimination of these more extreme, minimalist views of the period of the United Monarchy does not give us an excuse to adopt a simplistic or fundamentalist reading of the biblical historical accounts and the archaeological evidence. Rather, it calls upon us to ask how, when taken together, the age-old historical traditions of the Jewish people can be melded with archaeological evidence from the Land of Israel and evidence from surrounding cultures in the ancient Near East. Our challenge, therefore, is not to ask whether or not biblical accounts and archaeological evidence are true or not, but rather how, when taken together, the evidence available to us can allow us to reconstruct a sense of what the society was like that produced the biblical traditions that we have received.// / This is a roundabout way of saying that the remains don't match the biblical narrative, but we can, if we try really hard, kinda see how the remains were later enlarged into the biblical fantasy. He also says: /In the monarchic period a uniformity of architectural forms throughout Judah/Israel has been discovered... Architecturally the public city gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor are strikingly similar: the walls are very thick and feature casemates where people lived or that were used for storage... The uniformity of the features of the great public buildings in these cities suggests a royal administration./ Substituting Iron II for the incorrect "monarchic period", this is understandable, since the uniform architecture was the result of local governors from the same Assyrian empire. But of course, the architecture of Solomon was on a scale far above that of the Iron II buildings. Interestingly enough, the cities where these uniform city gates were found are, each of them, in the regional capitols of areas conquered by Assyria. He leaves off Lachish, which has the same gates, and which was the Assyrian capitol of their province of Judea in the time between their conquest of all Judea other than Jerusalem and their withdrawal after they were struck down before the gates of Jerusalem. Lisa On 4/5/2016 1:17 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > By Dr Lawrence Fishman > > or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 14:57:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:57:10 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 From: Marty Bluke via Avodah ... > The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are > made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time > and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an > additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the > above 2 issues. > 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't > peel off or crack, it stays black > 2. The sides are black as well. > The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the > traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't > the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the > gedolim today use black on black retzuos This is not so simple. It might be argued that the 'optional' addition of a glossy side is not so optional. Rashi says, the outside of the retsuos need to be the 'noy' [beauty]. In the old manner of painting - and not soaking - the retsuos, this was quite simple. The painted side represented the noy. Soaking the skins does not give a pleasant finished article. Thus, i would argue, the addition of a glossy side is imperative. A point that was missed is the opinion of the Arizal, that the retsuos of shel rosh should be black on both sides. (However, from previous argument it would appear that might entail a nice finish on both sides.) The objection that this new process is a chiddush is somewhat faulty. I possess retsuos of over 200 years. It is clear that the original method of manufacture was very different 200 years ago. The entire skin was not treated. Rather, strips were cut off and then painted. This enabled the sides to be painted as well. Thus, the entire way retsuos are manufactured nowadays represents a departure from tradition. The reason, perhaps, why gedolim may be reluctant on taking on this chumrah, is that it may be misconstrued as halacha. Dovid Rubin Your soul is a part of God, part of His Infinite Essence. You are beyond limit, estimation or assessment. Ever since creation, the world has been waiting for you. Since your soul realised itself, it has been waiting for its time to perform its unique tasks of improvement. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 06:27:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:27:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakheh ess shinnav Message-ID: <57050EC8.1010702@gmail.com> I got a laugh from Larry's responses: >From http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2016/04/05/weekly-digest-news-and-essays-in-and-out-of-orthodoxy-week-of-parshas-tazria-5776/ ...Dr. Steven Bayme, who has emerged recently as the primary spokesman for PORAT...validates Biblical Criticism even when it negates parts of the Torah.... Snippet: ''Did Moses actually write that Abraham pursued his foes until 'Dan' in order to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:14), or was the place name a later editorial insert to indicate what by then had become a well-known locale? Were there two ?Yairs? who each happened to have conquered 30 villages in the Bashan 200 years apart (Deut. 3:14; Judg. 10:3-4) or was this but one incident occurring later but inserted retrospectively into the Book of Numbers as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Bashan?'' =================== larry rothenberg April 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm Steve Bayme, 3000 years from now ? ''Were there really two presidents named Bush, a father and son, who both went to war with an Iraqi dictator named Saddam Hussein? or was this but one incident occurring later but added retrospectively into American history textbooks as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Iraq?'' ==================== Naftali April 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm In the offending ''snippet'' all Dr Bayme does is raise questions. Is the mere asking of questions now considered unOrthodox? in which case, what does an Orthodox Seder look like? -------------- larry April 5, 2016 at 3:46 pm The answer depends on whether you are a chacham or a rasha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:14:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chayav Livsumei In-Reply-To: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> References: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160406191405.GB5241@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : In the words of Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter in Torah Web on "Torah : and Nevuah" I found it at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rsch_tzav.html : In his commentary to the mishnayos (end of Sanhedrin), Rambam lists what : he considers are the thirteen principles of our faith. We believe in : prophecy. It is possible for G-d to communicate with man. We also believe : that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was on a higher level than that of : any of the other prophets. What does this mean? Is Rambam grading the : prophets? If Moshe Rabbeinu gets an A+, what does Micha get? And what : grade does Chavakuk deserve? : : No, this is not a matter of grading Moshe's prophecy. What Rambam means to : say is that the only prophet who was ever given mitzvos (with a binding : force for all future generations) was Moshe Rabbeinu. His was the only : prophecy that was on the level of Torah. I didn't get this paragraph. Because: 1- As it says further down: : Moshe Rabbeinu was the only prophet who was given what we technically : refer to as "mitzvos", commandments which are binding throughout all : the future generations, because they constitute the description of G-d's : essence, which is not subject to change. None of the prophets were ever : shown "the image of God", i.e., were never given "mitzvos". They were : only given a "hora'as sha'ah", of a temporary nature only... Well, if Moshe alone was shown the tzelem E-lokim (which is necessary to receive mitzvos), isn't that grading MRAH's above Micha or Chavaquq, who did not? Now if you're going to say that's the content of the nevu'ah, not the quality of navi (pe'ula, not gavra), the pasuq itself says, "Lo qam navi od beYisrael keMosheh, asher yeda'o H' Panim el panim." (Devarim 34:10) 2- The Rambam himself says that Moshe's nevu'ah was qualitatively unique. In the 7th ikar, the Rambam describes the "peh el peh" (Bamidbar 12:8) nevu'ah of Moshe as being unique in 4 ways: a- no intermediary -- nevu'ah direct from HQBH b- he didn't need to be asleep or in a trance c- it didn't cause him to weaken and shudder (c.f. Daniel 8:8-9, 16) d- Moshe could choose when he got nevu'ah; other nevi'im received when and if Hashem chose. In the Moreh 2:35, we find: ... For I must tell you that whatever I say here of prophecy refers exclusively to the form of the prophecy of all prophets before and after Moses. But as to the prophecy of Moses I will not discuss it in this work with one single word, whether directly or indirectly, because, in my opinion, the term prophet is applied to Moses and other men homonymously. A similar distinction, I think, must be made between the miracles wrought by Moses and those wrought by other prophets, for his signs are not of the same class as the miracles of other prophets... The word "nev'uah" is only used as a homonym -- it has a different meaning when used WRT Moshe than when we call anyone else a navi / nev'uah. This goes beyond grading Moshe an A+ and some other navi an A or less. That would be saying they are at different gradations on the same scale. What Moshe did wasn't nevu'ah as all in the same sense of the word. It was a different type of perception. See also Moreh 2:45, where he lists 11 gradations of nevu'ah -- all of which in the usual sense of the word. (Moshe's being to different to even be listed as a 12th.) The Rambam was far from afraid of ranking prophecy, if not prophets. But he does make a distinction between Moshe and the other nevi'im beyond who received mitzvos and who not. As I said, I don't think that's RHS's intent either, as can bee seen in the second snippet I left in this post. I just don't know what his intent is. 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 Wed Apr 6 13:26:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:26:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:28:26AM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : http://shuihaber.com/2016/03/31/the-arba-parshiyos/ ... : Rav Sperber explains that on the 5th Shabbos, they would then go back : to where they had left off. This seems to be the literal meaning of the : mishna that says: "on the fifth Shabbos, we resume reading like usual." As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also possible. The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a : 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year : cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the : Community in Eretz Yisroel. Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from EY than among Sepharadim. The question is when did Ashkenaz itself switch. It must have been centuries before the time in discussion in any case. Machzor Vitri (R' Simchah miVitrie -- a talmid of Rashi and the Ri's grandfather) discusss leiniing Bereishis on the 2nd day of Sheini Atzeres, the terms for Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis, and even the reshus for each. But it would be ironic if Ashkenaz became the bastion of Babylonian lening, spreading it to EY. I guess it's true: there is no one so vehement as the newly converted. : Lastly, there is an old minhag to say Yotzros and Krovos during the : Shabbos morning Tefilla... : This minhag became popular amongst the Chassidim... But I think most loyally maintained bvy Yekkes, due to the aforementioned ancient Ashkenazi attitude toward piut in general. : The Rema comments that the R'i, Rashba and the Tur all hold that there : is no issue with interrupting your regular tefilla for this, but if you : do not say the Yotzros it is still fine... (Note: change fn 10 to "OC 68:1".) The Rama takes it for granted that the minyan is saying them, "vekhein nohagin bekhol hameqomos le'amram". So even though he hold "vehameiqil ve'eino omeram lo hifsid" -- as long as you're with the tzibbur and not even learning during the piyut -- I am not sure he is actually advocating for skipping it. Ad RSH put it "it is still fine". I just wanted to point out that he would NOT permit what I myself do -- use the time to learn. "Ein le'adam lifrosh atzmo meihatzibur". He repeated this in 90:10, where he advocates saying the piyutim with the tzibbur. "Velo yifrosh min hatzibur afilu la'asoq bedivrei Torah". : The Minhag of the Chasam Sofer was not to recite the piyutim during : davening, rather he would sing them during the Shabbos or YomTov : seudah. The Mesora is that the Chasam Sofer learnt this from his rebbe : the Baal Hafla'ah who learnt it form the Mezritcher Maggid who learnt : it from the Baal Shem Tov... Whatever happened to the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah"? 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 Apr 6 13:58:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406205847.GE5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger responded: : > I think those two are different in kind. : : > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use : > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) : > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. : : Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible : hypothetically, albeit not situationally? We are comparing two ways of making the door open. If making the door open is not a halachic problem, then there is no contrast. I am saying that nothing physical happens to an electric eye or UV sensor to cause the motor to go on. However, with the mat, one is moving two metal plates together (or a conductive tape against a plate). Cut away the rubber, and you would see the circuit close. There is a visible cause and a visible effect. Even if part of the causality is only explainable by appeal to the quantum scale. (BTW, atoms are mostly vacuum. It's only quantum scale repulsion of electrons that fully explains why hitting a ball with a bat changes the course of the ball; why things don't just go through eachother.) ... : If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For : it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the : electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I : missing something here? It wouldn't be the motion of the electronc, even if they were macroscopic. You might as well prohibit flushing toilets and rolling marbles down a ramp, if one inherently prohibites the giving elecrons a chance to use their potential energy (voltage). All of the theories about why electricity is assur depend on the visible effects of the cercuit, or the visible making of a circuit, not the moving of current itself. (Except of course RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan even without a Sanhedrin.) : Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which : opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei. Also on that list: sparking, unless the motor's spin rate is based on the frequency of the AC current coming in. But PRDNL wouldn't help with a deOraisa. (RYE Spektor and ROY permit it for a derabbanan, the MB only for a double-derabbanan.) Water meters were mentioned. I posted about PRDNL anhd water meters in 2012 . Click on the subject line and see the thread. : Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe : Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone : on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the : electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur : d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." ... That's OC 4:84. Who doesn't talk about the invisible, but about electric power. "Vreo'in zeh bechush", although he means you can hear it from the loudspeaker. I do not see RMF saying that power that goes into results that in principle you cannot sense would be assur. : I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does : try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can : be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has : something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both : teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". : It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely : speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be : meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should : also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. But another part of the permissibility of speaking in the presence of someone with a hearing aid is that at times even with the hearing aid, the user doesn't hear anything, thus ruling out pesiq reishei, reducing it to davar she'ein miskavein. The problem I have with your "it sounds to me" is that it begs the question: Can there be havarah that can't be sensed? (Including: Can there be havarah if something burns below yad soledes bo?) Tir'u baTov! -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 Wed Apr 6 14:50:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between > Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the > other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also > possible. It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there are two. > The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read whichever sidra is next on the roster, but we are not back on track because we still have some of the four parshiyos coming up. Only on the shabbos after Hachodesh are we "back on track", at least until Pesach comes. >> This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a >> 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year >> cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the >> Community in Eretz Yisroel. This explanation is missing a major piece of the puzzle. It's not that the Baalei Tosfos had such enormous influence on Bnei EY that they induced them to change their minhag. They never had such an influence. Rather, the crusaders completely wiped out the Yishuv of EY. By the end of the 12th century there were essentially no Jews left; the only place minhag EY survived was at the EY shul in Cairo. Slowly EY began to be repopulated, mostly by Ashkenazi olim. When the Ramban arrived there was a small community in Akko (which was under Xian rule) but not even a minyan of Jews living in Y'm. Thus the new EY community that developed, and that the Sefardim found there when they came after 1492, was composed of European olim with European minhagim, including reading the Torah on the Bavli cycle. > Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of > the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that > Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from > EY than among Sepharadim. How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. -- 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 Apr 6 15:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:10:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read : whichever sidra is next on the roster... Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? ... :> Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of :> the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that :> Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from :> EY than among Sepharadim. : How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue : for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. Then why did Ashk start out triennial? Admittedly, it changed by Rashi's day, so "start out" was quite short, but still, there are records of debate about it. Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the siyum every third Shavuos.) Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were shorter. There are better indicators, but this period in Jewish History is more RRW's thing than mine. Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and finally Egypt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 15:22:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:22:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... > :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. > > : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we > : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read > : whichever sidra is next on the roster... > > Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" > for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track > but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. >> How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue >> for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. > Then why did Ashk start out triennial? I've never heard that it did. > Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. How so? > (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the > siyum every third Shavuos.) Sorry, I don't recall that. > Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that > died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were > shorter. Is there evidence for that, or is it just speculation? BTW Targum survived in some communities for some special readings, even after it stopped being used for the whole Torah. So it's possible that when and where Akdamos were written it was still done on Shavuos even if it wasn't the whole year. > Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and > finally Egypt. Again, is this established, or speculation derived from precisely the proposition that you are trying to derive from it? BTW I just came across another survival of ancient minhag EY: The kiddush Rosh Chodesh that is well-attested in EY in the first millennium (e.g. in Mas' Sofrim and in the list of differences between EY and Bavel) survived into the 13th century in the Minhag-EY shul in Fostat, but only on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Eventually minhag EY died out in Egypt too, but the idea of having a special seder Rosh Chodesh Nissan lived on, and is still practised by Egyptian Jews today, under the name "Seder al-Tawhid" (Seder Hayyichud). -- 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 Apr 6 15:29:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:29:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between >> Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the >> other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also >> possible. >> > > It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. > However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. > There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there > are two. There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and Hahodesh. There is also a mnemonic for the dates of the hafsakot according on the date of 1 Adar, "Zivdu: Zyah Bu Dad Ubyu" but I've never found it very useful because the mnemonic is such a tongue-twister that I can never remember it and end up working out the dates from scratch and reverse engineering the mnemonic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 17:59:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:22:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. : The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is : irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. Again, I am not insisting this implication is muchrach, but look at the mishnah (Megillah 3:4): RC Adar that falls out on Shabbos, we read P Sheqalim... On the 2nd, Zakhor On the 3rd, Parah Adumah On the 4th, "HaChodesh haZeh Lakhem" On the 5th, we return to the sequence... The Ran (quoted by Tosafos YT) only discussed "basheini" saying it's the 2nd week after Sheqalim or after the break described in the ellipses at the end of the first line of my "translation". :> Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. : How so? The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning of speach..." Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying he is prefacing. In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn bera H'..." 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 Wed Apr 6 18:10:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:10:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5705B370.3080401@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 08:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning > of speach..." > > Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into > referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY > beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying > he is prefacing. > > In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning > of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn > bera H'..." Why not a preface to the day's laining? -- 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 Apr 6 19:33:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:33:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger's posts are very well thought-out. I've reached the limits of my knowledge on this topic. I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? RMB wrote: > ... RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we > all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan > even without a Sanhedrin. Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we *know* are working, but *appear* to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really can't complain. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 21:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. > The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between > 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd > and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and > Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and > Hahodesh. Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. I don't see how a siman helps with that. [Email #2. -mi] On 04/06/2016 09:10 PM, Zev Sero wrote [about Akdamus]: > Why not a preface to the day's laining? Note that Tosfos Megillah 24a d"h Uvenavi says that in their day they still did targum of the haftaros on Pesach and Shavuos, and also that of matan torah (i.e. the leining of the first day of Shavuos), but not that of any other leining or haftarah (d"h Lo Shanu on the previous page). Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. -- 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 Apr 6 23:04:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:04:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. >> The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between >> 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd >> and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and >> Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and >> Hahodesh. >> > > Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. > I don't see how a siman helps with that. I checked RSZ's source, which turns out to be Yerushalmi Megilla 3:5. The context of the siman is a mahloket in the Yerushalmi whether Parah is defined as the Shabbat before Hahodesh or the Shabbat after Purim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 03:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:18:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407101838.GB3151@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:10:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who : wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he : was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since : by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. ... in parallel to the already existing Aqdamos. So it could be a 2nd hand reflection of the cycle in use when Aqdamus was written, rather than a dispoof of connection to the cycle. (BTW, the "-ta" ending is traditionally ascribed to the idea that when a Jew stops learning Torah (tav) he must immediately begin again (alef). A homily that does fit a siyum on Devarim and starting Bereishis far better than leining inyana deyoma. Of course, who knows if that was really the author's intent. It is a "cute" understanding of the piut and worth sharing either way.) And Yetziv Pisgam does not refer to pausing to give a preface before starting The Word. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:55:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, > where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his > conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads > him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, > I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to > Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. > And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches > Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need > to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we know are > working, but appear to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are > issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really > can't complain. > Akiva Miller Pretty much what R' Asher Weiss says un putting electricity in the maakeh bpatish category defined as things that chazal didn't fit in other categories. However I think he would say gdolei haposkim will come to a consensus, not "each for himself" on major categories. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 08:40:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Kitniyot, paper goods Message-ID: <20160407154022.7A2F717FBF0@nexus.stevens.edu> Can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. On Pesach, can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover? A. Paper plates, paper towels and napkins generally contain starch. Some forms of raw starch are kitniyot, such as corn starch, while other forms of starch, such as wheat starch, are actual chametz. In the U.S, it can safely be assumed that starch used in manufacturing is kitniyot, most probably corn-based. Though one should not intentionally add kitniyot to food, with respect to paper goods this is not a concern because the starch that is part and parcel of the paper itself is nifsal mei'achila (inedible). (If paper goods contain wheat starch, the fact that it is nifsal mei'achila may not suffice to permit their use, see Magen Avrohom 442:4). Based on the above, in the US, one may use paper plates, paper towels and napkins even if not certified for Passover. For a full list of non-food items that can be used on Passover without certification please go to https://oukosher.org/passover/guidelines/non-food-items/non-food-items/. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 09:53:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160407165337.GA21819@aishdas.org> RAM entered the discussion with: > There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, > but in my experience this idea is very new. And appears to be trying to leave with: > I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great > example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, > when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? (I agree that we lack clarity here, but I am not sure why RAM thinks it's a problem with the language rather than the ideas themselves.) Well, except that this notion that halakhah doesn't concern itself with phenomenona that people cannot experience unaided (in any situation) isn't limited to a discussion of electricity or even of Shabbos. The idea that canges internal to a chip in a fitbit wouldn't be an issue for hilkhos Shabbos (until there is some macroscopic effect of those changes) is by parallel to discussions of the permissibility of drinking water that contains creatures about the same size as a trace (thinkg "wire") on a chip. 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 Thu Apr 7 12:25:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:25:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy Message-ID: <20160407192530.8B8E617FAC2@nexus.stevens.edu> Last Shabbos we read Parshas Shmini, best known for discussing and specifying the requirements for discerning which animals are considered kosher. But what is a buffalo considered? Can we partake of a nice juicy buffalo burger? Although the Shulchan Aruch himself rules that a buffalo is considered a kosher beheimah, it is quite certain that he was not referring to our American buffalo, which, actually a bison, was unknown at the time... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:14:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:14:33 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A study of Dayan Usher Weiss on LED lights in his Tshuvos will reveal his Shita that such things are likely to be considered an issur under the rubric of Makeh B'patish. I didn't merit understanding all the halachic logic but I feel he would apply it here as well. We can be halachically exploitative and also include the view that your walking on Shabbos should not be the same as Chol! I'm sure many of us have seen the strange Shabbos walk avoiding large steps. Walking with a Fitbit may possibly be construed as transgressing this possuk in Nach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 07:30:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:30:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Matzah before Passover Message-ID: <20160408143111.6480417FAAD@nexus.stevens.edu> I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan... OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Am I permitted to eat matzah which is labeled "Not Kosher for Passover"? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Matzos which are labeled "Not Kosher for Passover" are made without a full-time mashgiach present during production, and the water used in kneading the dough is not mayim she'lanu (specially drawn water). Though we would not eat these matzahs on Pesach, it is not certain that the matzahs are absolute chametz. Mishnah Berurah 471:12 writes that the Rabbinic prohibition to not eat matzah on Erev Pesach, applies even to matzah that has folds or bubbles, since such matzahs are of questionable status, and they are not absolute chametz. This would imply that "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs may not be eaten Erev Pesach, since these matzahs are also of questionable status. Nonetheless, Rav Schachter, Shlita, maintains that the definition of matzah with respect to the minhag (practiced by some) not to eat matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh is not the same as the definition of matzah relative to Erev Pesach. Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 214:1) writes that a minhag is a form of a vow. Vows are interpreted in accordance with common usage of language. Since most people consider "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs to be chametz, they may be consumed until Erev Pesach. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] Forward Unsubscribe [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 09:01:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:01:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eshbaal Message-ID: <20160408160147.GA26885@aishdas.org> >From http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/first-person-banning-baal or http://j.mp/1VdtbxE :-)BBii! -Micha Biblical Archaeology Society First Person: Banning Ba'al As published in the March/April 2016 Biblical Archaeology Review Hershel Shanks -- 04/04/2016 Was the proper name Eshbaal -- man of Ba'al -- banned in Judah after King David's time? A recent analysis suggests that it was. Ba'al, meaning lord or master, was a common divine appellative in Canaan and neighboring areas during Biblical periods, most frequently referring to the storm god. Very recently an inscription was uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa -- a site already famous for a late 11th-10th-century B.C.E. inscription -- about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. According to excavator Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, the site is probably an imposing fortress erected by King David facing the Philistines. ... The name 'Ishba'al or, more commonly, Eshbaal, is well known from the Bible. It means "man of Ba'al." (The name Beda` appears for the first time in this inscription.) ... In the Bible various Ba'al names appear of people who lived in King David's time or earlier (Jerubbaal [Judges 6:32], Meribbaal [1 Chronicles 9:40], etc.). But the Bible mentions no Ba'al names after this -- neither Ba'al nor Eshbaal. Ba'al names simply do not appear in the Bible after David's time. The archaeological situation is a bit, but not completely, different. We have more than a thousand seals and seal impressions (bullae) and hundreds of inscriptions from Israel and Judah from the post-David period (ninth-sixth centuries B.C.E.). The name Eshbaal is not to be found among these names. The situation with the name Ba'al is slightly different; it does occasionally appear in Israel -- and of course in Philistia, Ammon and Phoenicia. But not in Judah! It seems that Ba'al and Eshbaal were banned in David's kingdom. One reason may have been that, at least officially, Judah was monotheistic. Thus, names constructed with a form of a foreign deity's name -- especially of Ba'al, who was Yahweh's rival -- would not have been considered kosher. In addition, David's predecessor and rival, King Saul, fathered a son named Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33 [2]) who reigned for two years (2 Samuel 2:10) -- another good reason to bar the name in David's kingdom. [2] "Ishbosheth" in the account in 2 Samuel 2-4. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 08:52:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:52:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> References: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160411155203.GA3225@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:36:04PM IDT, R Ben Waxman posted to Areivim: : https://twitter.com/benwaxman/status/718898333075566592 : Translation of something Rav Sharki said in an article on dati : students attending university: : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? This has to be a mistranslation. After all, being unable to find an answer is FAR short of proving no answer exists. Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and tragedy. 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil 3. God exists First proposal. Therefore 4. There is no evil But observation will tell you: 5. There is evil We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. So really only 3 & 5 are plausible open to denial: either there is no G-d, or there is no evil. As I posted there: Theists consistently reject #2 "If an OOO Being exists, there would be no evil." That is given short shrift, and therefore the real argument is really swept under the rug. A world in which the OOO Being provides all the good might be worse than a world in which the OOO Being wants to provide others the opportunity to be provides of good themselves. The assumption is that a world of passive recipients is better (more good) than a world of contributors. This argument is kind of like saying that: 1- A parent has the ability to see more obvious sources of pain in advance and help a child avoid them. 2- A good parent would try to do so. Yet 3- Good parents allow their toddlers to fall on their bums when learning to walk -- despite seeing it coming. Therefore, 4- there are no good parents. The answer is -- #2 is false. There are better goods than preventing all pain. But notice I didn't answer the question of theodicy, tzadiq vera lo. Arguably the question is unanswerable to humans. (Admittedly there are O Jews who deny #5, and assert that tragedy is an illusion. My argument is more that the best universe is one that has the lesser evil, that a paradox in the human condition makes a world with no tragedy itself imperfect. The question of the reality of evil is a tangent worth exploring, but not to go even further afield than my point.) R' Sherky is NOT possibly arguing we should therefore accept Prof Haslanger's argument, though. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: While RUS's name appears around the web both as "Sharky" and "Sherky", I'm going with the evidence of . -- 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 Mon Apr 11 16:21:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:21:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag Message-ID: I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, no chrain on fish. I wonder if any other groups have such a minhag , a nd what might be the origin of such a custom. 2nd question. In re nuts on pesach , It seems all the major agencies cite that any additive free whole nuts are ok without special cert. ( pecans excepted) . However the detroit vaad recommends assuring the nuts are paked in a hametz free facility. This is NOT noted by OU, CRChic, etc. i wonder if this would be an economic hardship that the non haredim lidvar hashem would hold to. Interestingly the costco kirkland nuts remark that they maybe packed in a place w wheat, soy ,etc... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 18:59:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:59:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat > ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, > no chrain on fish Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 08:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> References: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> Message-ID: <570D11D4.8000908@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 09:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: >> I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat >> ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, >> no chrain on fish http://chabadlibrary.org/books/chasidim/otzar/4/14/39.htm Note that although this does include all the ingredients of charoses, it does not include eggs, or the greens that might be used for karpas, contrary to the sources I will cite later. > Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first > day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first > day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, > so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. > > Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems > to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be > "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. The minhag not to eat maror before the seder goes back at least to the Rashba and Rashi. Although the Bet Yosef dismisses it, the Rama cites it, and it appears to be common in many communities, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi. The BY's question is answered by many, saying that even in the case of matzah "teavon" in this context means novelty, and the pleasure that comes from that, not an actual desire for the taste of the food, so it doesn't matter whether the food tastes good or bad, or isn't even tasted at all. See under "shulchan orech", that the Ashkenazi custom is not to eat even whole eggs at the first seder, but rather to eat only beaten eggs, which is probably the origin of the common minhag to eat the egg mashed up in salt-water as a "soup". See also who says it's the common minhag of sefardim not to eat lettuce or greens, beyond the requirements, for a day before each seder, including at the first seder. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 14:28:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:28:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness Message-ID: Cannot taste the bitterness 1. "Filled me with bitter herbs - Hisbiaani bMrorim - hirvani Laana - sated of bitter" - Midrash Eichah in Psicha and on the Passuk - compares the Exodus of Mitzrayim to the Exile after the First Temple was destroyed. 2. Apparently the bitter taste of these vegetables was familiar to all. 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after kiddush. 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush. A simple person might prefer to start off with Maror ASAP. Someone may have stolen the Karpas. Those who pursue radishes for Karpas may prefer it as a secondary variety of Maror, reminding us not to consider this the REAL maror, which can only be eaten with the Matzah, in advance of next year's Korban Pesach. 5. What if one ate the Karpas leaning - bhesseiba? That would explain the child's train of thought - you eat bitter herbs - for slavery and you ate them leaning? Sorry - I have no source yet for that. When Matza was just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed Thaddeus of Rome. 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth, just call in Rabbi Vaya to check it, or alternatively? take it off the menu, finding some other food for appetizer. 7. skip the appetizer. Renal patients who cannot drink begin with Kiddush on Matzah, which some would much prefer. The Magid would be after the meal had initialized. 8. Lately I checked two heads of Romaine lettuce. When I sample some leaves, no bitterness was to be found, just a very mild sweetness. in fact the Pri Chadash in back of SA Orach Chaim - openly advocates that totally sweet lettuce - sans bitterness - is perfectly acceptable! To recap, the Mishnah lists five grain varieties for Matzah, which are exclusive. It then lists 5 varieties for Maror, but even the Amoraim debated what to buy. Rav Huna Bar abba ? sought Maror - the bitterest herb eponymous with bitterness, as the Mehadrin would seek. Rava chided him - Chas Rachmana Alan - Hashem had consideration for us and prefers Chassa (pun - means lettuce) which has some sweetness. 9. I take this metaphorically - Hashem is always keeping the balance of sweetness and bittterness in the fortunes of the Jerwish People. Fixating on bitterness can lead to bad results. 10. The Pri Chadash quotes the famous Aruch (of Rome, a century before Rashi, disciple perhaps of Rabeinu Chananeil) on Charchavina, one of the 5 species of the Mishna, defined generically - "one sort of bitter herbs". 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 sons taste it ? 12. Is Maror a specific species exact type of plant? Ateres Tzvi (margin of OC 473) and Elya Rabba combine to say there is a family called Lettuga - lettuces. That helps immensely - as the leading species candidate is "bitter lettuce" - Hebrew Chassa Matzpen - has spine of bumps on its leaf, and is a glorified dandelion! My neighbor the botanist has no idea where to find it but he offered me some fresh horseradish leaves. Horseradish relates to the cabbage family - including endives, which get some mention. 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection. My father's tears would flow as he ground his horseradish every year. The Chochmas Shlomo, Rav Shlomo Kluger, seems to have the high road of directness here. Rambamists can see that the examples of foods barely edible - which barely are considered normal foods - in Shvisas Asor - are these very vegetables - Chizrin. 15. The famous Rav Chaim Berlin, son of the Netziv, apparently got medical advice not to eat horseradish, and sought grounds to absolve his Neder. He sent a letter to his father the Netziv whether he should continue to eat Khrein. Netziv - as predictable - answers - use Sallatin - lettuce - like the common practice, and also the zayis olive size is very small. [Meromei Sadeh]. 16. In OC 473 the Lvush and Elya Rabba - praise to the publishers of the new Levush set - discuss Maror, and Ateres Tzvi explains that any lettuce is fine, as long as it is bitter. 17. Biologically chickory and lettuce are very close. If even the cabbages - the latin name braccidae are also included in Maror, then perhaps both kale in its beauty and varieties are included, even perhaps arugula. 18. Perhaps I will make the bracha on kale, then arugula, then Romaine, then horseradish for mimetic imitation of my father. 19. For me - no more sweet or tasteless Maror, I cannot make it bitter anymore. 20. See also Kovetz - in back of the old Rambams. See Aruch al Hashas who has in kilayim and in other places diagrams and exact species names for all the candidates mentioned in the mishnayos. There is an alphabetical index in the last volume. 21. Identification of Chizrin with Chazeres is no sure thing. Professor Felix has a sefer called haChaklaut..... which explains from a farmer's point of view what it means that a crop thrives in the shade. 22. This is actually a call for help! I imagine most people deal with these questions annually. Please - any opinion or information will be helpful to me. 23. David Wacholder 5:15 PM (2 minutes ago) Email: dwacholder at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Wed Apr 13 09:07:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:07:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum Message-ID: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: https://soundcloud.com/jroot-radio/yosef-wikler-apr-07?in=jroot-radio/sets/kashrus-on-the-air. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me or click here to subscribe kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 13 13:16:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum In-Reply-To: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds > this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in > 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered > Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's > largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... This is last years info. The link is to an article from 5775. The OU & Star-K are still certifying quinoa, as they did last year. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 14 18:51:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:51:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos Message-ID: Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this (even opening with the remark that this halacha is "pashut - simple"), yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. I will concede that this was a literally parenthetical (or rather, bracketed) comment, and perhaps we should not darshen too much into it. But on the other hand, he had the option of saying that a choleh may *eat* kitnyos himself, and insted he took the extra step of saying that *we* may do the cooking. And yet, the Chofetz Chaim omitted the warning which is so ubiquitous today, that the cooking should be done in separate pots, not to be eaten from by healthy Ashkenazim. So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. (Plenty of poskim talk about ta'aroves kitniyos, but that's usually an after-the-fact situation, and I don't want to get bogged down on whether or not the situations are similar. I'd rather hear about those who explicitly address the keilim issue.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 07:15:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:15:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160415141538.GA30368@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:51:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that : Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid : ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. RMF explains that one may drink whisky (51 weeks a year) aged in wine casks because we do not prohibit ta'am stam yeinam. The core of his argument is that stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6 (YD 134:5). One can taste the wine in a mixture of one part wine to 6 parts water. (IM YD 1:62) Well, qitniyos is batel berov. (Rama OC 453:1, see MB ad loc that explains the Rama must mean where the qitniyos is a mi'ut, and is not permitting every mixture.) Bringing me to the need to switch the formula for KLP Coca Cola. Corn is a late edition to qitniyos, as it is a New World plant. Corn syrup adds the issue of mei qitniyos. A 12 oz can of coke has 140 Cal (Pepsi: 150). High fructose corn syrup is 4 Cal/gm, so that 12 fluid oz can cannot contain more than 35 gm = 1-1/4 oz (weight) mei qitniyos. Less than 10%, never mind rov. So, the problem with standard American Coke is mei iffy-qitniyos that is batul. And yet it's avoided on Pesach? (According to 80% of tasters prefer Mexican Coke, which -- like KLP Coke -- only differs by the use of sugar rather than HFCS. So I hope no one from Coke is actually reading this post.) :-)BBii! -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 Fri Apr 15 07:49:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness Message-ID: 1. R' Micha pointed out the Yerushalmi discussion whether Chassa metuka sweet lettuce is kosher. That shows that the name - Chazeret Chasa - synonymous with Marror is sufficient, and bitter taste is not necessary. 2. R' Chaim Kanievsky points out that the Chazon Ish - Orach Chaim page 398 in Otzar Hachochma - strongly rejects that conclusion from the Yerushalmi! (hat tip to R' Kalman Gutman!) 3. After 6 lines pointing out how vital the taste of Maror is, CI shows the absurds of such a conclusion - if so you can leave the Maror in Chazeres, and need not taste it at all - swallow in a sieve - and since any vegetable which is bitter is sufficient to be Yotzei, we see that the bitter taste is the governing principle. 4. 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond edible. 6. Thus we should pursue bitter lettuce. The paradox is that the lettuce industry spends all its resources to prevent "bolting" - becoming bitter. The economy runs on sweet lettuce, as CI also pointed out. Pesach is in spring, so it is not so simple. 7. That would be the practical problem the Yerushalmi is attacking. You do not need the strongest bitterness, mild transitional bitterness sufficient. 8. The super-kosher bug-free industry now markets "greenhouse" kale and arugula, which are mildly bitter. I purchased both last night. Usually they are used by French chefs. This is a classic Chazon Ish. He wanted Torah based lifestyle, and Mehadrin bitterness in Maror fits right in with his theme. Build on the sound simple meaning of the Torah. -- David Wacholder Email: dwacholder at gmail.com dwacholder at optonline.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:59:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:59:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos Message-ID: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Or if you want, I am equally reviving the threads "Minhag Avos and Minhag haMakom" (see the group of threads at ) "Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva" "Paradigm Changes in Halacha" or the quite timely "obsession with kitniyot" In AhS this week, I found I was not alone in concluding from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim ch.4, cases in both TB and RY) that there is a general rule binding one (of a community) to maintain minhag avos. (At least when there is no conflicting single minhag hamaqom.) The AhS (YD 119:42, closing paranthetic) cites the minhag of Benei Baishan (Pesachim 50b) not to travel from Tzur to Tzidon on erev Shabbos. His case is a visitor who is keeping he minhagim of his host community. The Shakh and Maharal Chaviv say that if everyone else is eatting something that by his minhag is prohibited -- not as local pesaq, but as actual minhag -- he may eat it with them. The AhS leaves it with a tzarikh iyun gadol, because visiting a place should not allow their minhagim to override minhag avos. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:43:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:43:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57110C14.1000403@sero.name> On 04/15/2016 10:49 AM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: > 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your > lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond > edible. This is not true. The ChTz says no such thing. -- 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 Sun Apr 17 09:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit Message-ID: I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat. Both of them are important experts in halacha and modern technology Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need t fixler said he heard the same psak from t ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 03:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:27:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 1:02 PM Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both > Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat.... > Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it > was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need r fixler said he heard > the same psak from r ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan Why is it not mesaken mane? [Transliteration mine. -micha] -- Shui Haber From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:27:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Shui Haber wrote: > Why is it not mesaken mane? [transliteration still mine -micha] They hold that anything that cannot be seen or felt is nor metaken-maneh or any other melacha. Of course if one pushes buttons or has a model in which the results are shown immediately on the watch then it would be forbidden. The assumption is that nothing on the watch indicates that it is recording. Rosen indicated to me that he has written all this but I do not at present have his teshuva. The general approach of tzomet is that (almost) all their products are meant for special individuals etc, sick, police, doctors etc when needed. Though they don't manufacturer a smart watch the same principles hold. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:51:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:51:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us from my question.) My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can remember. But the hagada seems to say more. It does not merely tell what the proper response should be, but it also seems to direct that response to specific responder(s). I am referring to the hagada's words, "v'af atah". What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! Am I totally off track? Anyone see my question? Does anyone have a translation or perush that doesn't ignore the word "af"? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB: > > Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger > (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) > G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and > tragedy. > > 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO > 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil > 3. God exists > > First proposal. Therefore > 4. There is no evil > > But observation will tell you: > 5. There is evil > > We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. > (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually once started a thread here called ?What can?t God do??. Some examples: Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? Can God lie? I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. > (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a > prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil > to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, God, have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God really want that? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:04:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:04:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5714F781.9020002@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:51 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: > > (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem > (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar > (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh > (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved > > (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us > from my question.) I will, however, point out that translating it "knock out", or as any kind of blow, is completely ignorant. There is simply no way that it can mean that. So where does this stupid idea come from? It *could* come from some amhoretz confusing it with "hakei", hei kaf hei, meaning to hit. But I think it's more likely to come from Yiddish, a language the baal hagada never even heard of, and the phrase "hack ois", or in English "hack out". > My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply > have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that > would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can > remember. What specific wording are you suggesting instead of the ones the baal hagadah uses? > What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should > hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument > being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh > his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! > > Am I totally off track? I think so. How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him. -- 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 Mon Apr 18 08:09:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:09:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: What is the status of cooking kitniyot in a pot on Pesach (for ashkenazim). Outside of Israel this is relevant only for small children, sick etc. In Israel it is relevant this year as to whether one can cook kitniyot on the 7th day of Pesach for the immediate following shabbat. All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the pot even for use the following year ! He further claims that this is the standard custom. I have seen that RHS allows use the same day. Does anyone know of others who require actually kashering the pot even if it won't be used until Pesach next year. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:04:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: I asked why the Hagada uses the words "v'af atah" to introduce the answer to the rasha. R' Zev Sero responded: > How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked > son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that > your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say > something harsh to him. Interesting thought. But if so, then for the other OOPS! I hadn't noticed that these exact same words introduce the Hagada's answer to the chacham. And rightly so - Your child is asking a detailed question, and you too should respond with a detailed answer. My bad. Thanks! But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? (The She'eino Yodea Lish'ol never asks anything at all, so there is no congruency to invoke RZS's suggestion.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:14:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:14:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57156A61.2000800@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:04 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > > But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: > > 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? > 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? > 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? Because he simply quotes the pasuk. In the cases of the first two sons he (for some reason) davka *doesn't* quote the pasuk's response (Avadim Hayinu to the chacham and Zevach Pesach Hu to the rasha), but makes one up for the chacham, and borrows the she'eino yodea lish'ol's answer for the rasha. For the second two sons he simply quotes the pesukim verbatim. -- 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 Tue Apr 19 13:34:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:34:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to others subunits (e.g. ethnic). Any good actuary (or even a poor one) can tell you correlation doesn't prove causation, but it does provide some thoughts on some interesting questions (e.g. why the switch to ethnic minhagim from geographic ones?). 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 01:07:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:07:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: a story from years ago A friend of mine lived near RMF on the lower east side. One year RMF invited him for seder. However the friend didn't eat gebrochs but was too polite to tell RMF that he couldn't come because he was more machmir and so made up some excuse. Same thing happened the next year. The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat at my seder. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 05:17:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:17:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special Message-ID: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Pesach is a Yom Tov of diverse moods. The tragic and heroic, the mournful and hopeful, the somber and sentimental ? strangely commingled and reflected in the services and rituals. One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l?zecher aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b?Av. Interestingly, the first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b?Av. So as Pesach begins Friday evening this year (and last), so too, Tisha b?Av (actual date) begins Friday evening this year (and last). At our seder, we read about the Four Children (quite different from each other, but a portion of each of the sons in all of us). On Pesach we usher in the solemn days of Sefirah, which cast a spell upon the mirthful spirit of this Yom Tov and which recalls the ill-fated Bar Kochba rebellion with its gloomy aftermath; and on the same night, we open the door for Eliyahu HaNavi, the harbinger of glad tidings. On the day we recite Yizkor (with sad overtones), we recite Hallel (quite the opposite). On the day when we read the Haftorah of the ?Valley of the Dry Bones,? and we ask with the prophet: ?Son of man, can these bones live?? (Ezek. 37); this very same day, we read Shir Hashirim, the song of youth and of hope. When we think of all the trouble, travail, terrorism in the world and some of the trials and tribulations in our own lives, we can drink four cups of wine and temporarily forget our troubles. May your present be better than your past and not as good as your future! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:42:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:42:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special In-Reply-To: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> References: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Message-ID: <20160420154253.GA21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:17:29AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l'zecher : aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b'Av. Interestingly, the : first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b'Av. The iqar is to have two cooked foods. Egg and shankbone is a layer on top of that. Judging from the Ari's lining up the items on the ke'arah with the 10 sefiros, wre are using the egg as the cooked food in memory of the chagigah, and the bone to regall the qorban pesach. One could link that to mourning, that we are mourning the real seder, complete with qorban, as we sit down to our best-we-can-do one. And we did lose the ability to make a qorban pesach on 9 beAv. But the egg isn't really about aveilus directly. 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 Wed Apr 20 08:47:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:47:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:07:55AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly : asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the : real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 : guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said : now you can eat at my seder. I know also the IM permits Ashkenazim who daven "Sfard" to switch back to Ashkenaz (even over 150 years after the family first switched to). But I didn't think he was in general a believer in the idea that Litvisher minhagim were superior to other East European ones. Just that davening was differenct because it's a switch back to the earlier nusach. So what's going on here? Why would he encourage someone to quit the minhag of gebrochts? (For weaker grounds than usually argued against qitnios.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:57:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:57:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> References: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> I can't answer for sure but my guess would be that RMF felt that one could quit gebrochs for a sufficiently good reason and he felt that this was a good reason. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 20:17:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos References: Message-ID: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> R? AM: What about an ordinary old-fashioned film camera? Without a flash, there's nothing electrical about it. In fact, when one presses the shutter, nothing at all happens except that some chemical reactions occur in the film. Even after Shabbos, there is no visible change to the film, until after it has undergone some specific chemical treatment. Yet I've never seen a shomer shabbos person use such a camera on Shabbos, nor have I ever hear it suggested that it might only be d'rabanan. ------------------ Old MYG: That?s a great question, I think, about the film camera. I agree that it makes sense that it should be only a d?rabanan, except for Polaroid. And the d?rabanan may well be that since its entire purpose is to be in service to that Kesivah, it?s a Kli She?melachto L?issur, and therefore muktzah. But if that?s so, then the heteirim of muktzah would therefore apply, like tiltul min hatzad, and shvus d?shvus, l?tzorech gufo, and so on? After reading through it, I still don?t see any reason to prohibit it besides for Muktzah? Rabbi Bleich at this link (http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%203/Survey%20of%20Recent.pdf) quotes R? SZA that it?s ?mistaver? that taking a film photo is assur m?drabanan. Rabbi Bleich himself is not so impressed with that argument. ----------------------------- New MYG: I thought of another issur ? taking a photo with a film camera is Hachanah, because you?re only taking it for the result that you will get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d?oraysa. KT and CKVS, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:50:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:41:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the harsh attack. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:32:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:32:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> References: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160421193255.GA9816@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:17:10PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I thought of another issur -- taking a photo with a film camera is : Hachanah, because you're only taking it for the result that you will : get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d'oraysa. Return back to nidon didan (from the subject line)... A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the same reasoning would apply. But many other such devices can be used as a digital watch on Shabbos. So carrying it around -- even if you want the step tracking -- is not ONLY for the tracking. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:50:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:50:56PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to : make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not : a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. Actually, for RMF in particular, I find that hard to imagine. The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they were in error, he does advocate a more limited form -- cooking dishes from boiled matzah because the result may be confused with recipes that produce chameitz. The Keneses haGedolah (17th cent) confirms the Raavan's fears with a story of it actually happening. Someone made fish "breaded" with matzah meal, and the neighbor mistakenly learned from it that it was okay to fry fish in actual flour. Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after the Besh"t -- there are stories about the Baal Shem Tov eating keneidelach on Pesach, the Magid of Mezritch did not eat gebrochts. The SA haRav (discussed here annually) says that the change was due to a change in how we make matzah. This is the same generation in which kneading time was counted toward the mil, and therefore the whole process got more rushed. Until then, the chance of umixed flour remaining on/in the dough was unrealistic. I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thing cracker matzos; it would only apply to the Rama's only less than a tefach matzah. So here you have two people writing at close to the same time, one explaing why the minhag recently started, the other assuming the minhag is old and no longer applicable to the current umdena. But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer applicable. 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 Thu Apr 21 13:04:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:04:14 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: between gebroks and kitniyos, with our modern eye could we say one is more justified or were both products of the time. eg gebroks was invented in altererebe's time as a reaction to the nexus of thick matzos with incompetent bakers. kitniyos a reaction to legume-flour nexus . today , almost all matzos are either mechanized or learnedly baked; and only thin matzos made in ashkenazi land [unless you order softmatza.com]. and though legume flours like chickpea are extant, the communities that primarily use them never accepted this new minhag. it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them off... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 19:50:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on > Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal > Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. > I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the > pot even for use the following year ! Last week, in the thread "Ta'am kitniyos", I wrote that Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this, yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. So I will now rephrase the question that I had asked there: RET referred here to "seforim". Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this question in writing, and gives his reasoning. (My wild guess is that if such a source can be found, it is less likely to be in the context of baby food, and more likely to be in the context of an Ashkenazi who was invited to eat at a Sephardi home on Pesach.) Anyone know of such seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 13:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:50:07 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2016 5:50 AM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they > were in error, he does advocate a more limited form ... > Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after > the Besh"t... The SA haRav... > I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. > Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that > gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thin cracker matzos... > But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world > used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which > case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer > applicable. I don't see how any of these considerations suggest that Gebrochts is a Minhag that requires Hatarah. In fact I think it more than likely they reflect otherwise. The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are hardly substantial. And if there is any substance to the reason being related to the change in the way Matza is made, well then being so late, it can hardly be considered a binding Minhag. And one opinion is not adequate to propel activity to the point of being a binding Minhag, especially when it is so poorly justified. BTW it is astonishing that Matza of 10mm thickness be considered edible when baked to the point of being hard. You would need a hammer and cold chisel to break it. It makes no sense. Such Matza would only be edible if it was baked soft. Re the ShTeshuvah, he limits the problem to soft Matza, which is GRATED on a RibAysen (and explains that the problem no longer exists due to changes to the Matza used for making meal being baked hard and describe CRUSHING it) so it must have been soft. Soft Matza that is whole can be easily evaluated to determine if it is fully baked. Once it is grated however, that becomes impossible. The problem is compounded when you remember that probably the most important quality sought by the balabusta is that it be as white as possible so the risk of being under baked is all the greater. There was not ever a concern that flour remained in the Matza and that might become Chamets. But even if it did it can not become Chamets since it has been heated. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 09:11:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160422161136.GA4937@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:04:14PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them : off... An earlier question... Given our lack of minhag hamaqom, do we want to cast minhag avos off? What ties us to community if we're not connecting "laterally" to our contemporaries if not our connection to the past? Pesach is so experiential and so nostalgia driven, perhaps we should harbor / develop enough attachment to minhag avos (mimeticism) for that alone to motivate keeping qitniyos. :-)|,|ii! (And a special :-)|,ii to any Granikim out there!) -Micha PS: Yes, I do appreciate the irony that in a post about preserving minhag avos, I do a "shout out" to those who use 2 matzos at their seder. Even though most of them are doing so in a choice of textualism over mimeticism. -- 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 Fri Apr 22 09:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 06:50:07AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are : hardly substantial. The stories about the Besht are that he DID eat gebrochts. This isin contrast to the SA haRav who was firmly against. And the SA haRav (shu"T #6 in the bac of vol 6) IS substantial. See last year's BTW, while I fint this hard to accept as RMF's pesaq, R Eli Turkel told us last year that RSZA does hold as per the story about RMF: > In Halichos Shlomo (p90) it states explicitly that one can change his > custom and eat gebrochs after hatart nedarim. However, this should be done > only if there is a good reason (tzorach chashuv) for the change. Thus, for > a chatan he would allow the hatarat nedarim if keeping bebrochs would cause > family difficulties. And R Yisrael Herczeg wrote: > ... I just looked over the notes of the droshoh Rav Yitzchok > Mordechai HaKohen Rubin gave last Shabbos. He said that Rav Elyashiv > allowed for hataras neder on gebrochts. He also mentioned that Rav Chaim > Kanyevski said that the Steipler was matir neder on gebrochts for someone > who had difficulty eating matzah unless it was softened with liquid. He > added that Rav Chaim Greineman said that the Chazon Ish told him that the > Steipler's heter was invalid. And yet in his own life: > I asked Rav Elyashiv z"l if I could be matir neder on gebrokts and he told > me I could not. >From R/Prof Y Levine: > A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud > of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in > the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating > gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar > Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: > The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one > who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to > eating Gebrokts. > It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may > rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. > Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when > Matzohs were thick Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST that the minhag refers to a kind of matzah most of you do not eat. I have a few lb from the Syrian community in Flatbush, in addition to the usual. So if I had the minhag of nisht gebrochts, RYSE might still have told me to limit my hataras nedarim and continue not eating Syrian-style matzos with liquids. IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for reasons similar to the RYSE report. :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 14:11:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding hachanah, R' Micha Berger wrote: > A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the > same reasoning would apply. True, but hachana is a problem only if specific actions are taken to do that preparation. For example, washing one's hands over a sink full of dirty dishes is okay, even if one likes the idea that the dishes will get wet, provided that he'd be washing his hands there anyway, even if the sink was empty. So too for the Fitbit, which is already attached to whatever, and one is not doing any specific action for the Fitbit. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 24 04:00:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:00:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says > he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the > minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST ... > IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my > opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. > And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for > reasons similar to the RYSE report. May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. The closest true argument was documented by the ShTeshuvah who clearly related the problem to the type of Matza baked to be used for Gebrochts - it was at risk of not being properly baked [presumably because they were trying to keep it as white a possible] and being Chamets in the first place - it actually had nothing to do with the Matza Meal becoming wet. And that problem was solved by modifying the Matza baked for meal to be baked hard. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 15:27:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim Message-ID: In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: shabasos limnucha moadim l'simcha chagim uzmanim l'sason I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are, especially as opposed to the other three. But what precisely distinguishes the other three from each other? My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they the same in regards to Sason? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 12:58:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:58:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> An Areivim exchange... On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08pm IDT, R `Eli Turkel wrote: > what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:31pm +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes : from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. ... Doesn't this just beg the question? I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 2nd day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 18:22:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:22:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Areivim, Lisa Liel wrote: >> On Areivim R `Eli Turkel wrote: >>> what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts >> According to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. > I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah > of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw > from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? Who says he *did* associate lions with melucha? The pesukim don't make such an association. Unkelus does make that connection, translating "gur aryeh Yehudah" as a prophecy that royalty will come to Yehudah, but even there Rashi explains that this means that a young David will become a mighty king, just as a lion cub becomes a mighty beast. So the lions there are not really a symbol of royalty but of might; and Unkelus's treatment of the rest of the pasuk seems to confirm that. But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. -- 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 Apr 27 00:50:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:50:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> The best source is RYZA halichot shlomo volume on moadim - Pesach page 350 (shin-mem) He pasjens that (like this year) one can cook kitniyot on friday for shabbat assuming there are people in the neighborhood who eat kitniyot (ie sefardim) and on shabbat one can eat foods that has in them chametz derabban. One should be machmir only on chametz deoraisa. The notes below go into detailed reasons. I didnt see anything about the dishes. but as mentioned he just casually says one can cook the kitniyot. Rav Rimon in his hagadah (ie the last few years) also allows cooking kitniyot for the last shabbat after pesach Though it isnt a sefer the email sent out of ROY's piskei halachot also allow cooking kitniyot on friday for shabbat for ashkenazim again using the reasoning that sefardim can eat the kitniyot on Pesach itself (he quotes the shut of RSZA minchat shlomo tenina end of siman 17). He paskens that it is preferable to use special pots -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 00:56:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:56:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RMF and gebrocha Message-ID: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebrochts According to Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik of Vitebsk, the custom originated with Dov Ber of Mezeritch .[2] (This appears, for example, in Shulchan Aruch HaRav , c. 1800.) In fact, the members of some nineteenth century Lithuanian Jewish communities deliberately ate gebrochts to demonstrate the permissibility of this practice.[*citation needed *] Both the Vilna Gaon [3] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ruled that there is no reason to avoid eating gebrochts. (no source given) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 05:03:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:03:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Changes in Shmoneh Esreh Message-ID: Yesterday, as I was davening mincha, I found myself working hard to keep my eyes in the siddur, lest I make one of the mistakes that I'd have to repeat Shmoneh Esreh for. It occurred to me that in the course of the year, there are many minor changes which are *not* m'akev the tefila, such as Anenu, Al Hanisim, and the constant choice between Sim Shalom and Shalom Rav. But it seems to me that only four of those are so critical that - depending on circumstances - they can be m'akev one's Shmoneh Esreh: Morid Hageshem or omitting it HaMelech Hakadosh vs. HaE-l Hakadosh Tal Umatar Yaaleh V'yavo The chidush that came to me suddenly is that of these four changes, *three* of them apply on Chol Hamoed Pesach. There are three parts of the tefilah that we must get right, because messing up *any* of those three requires us to repeat the Shmoneh Esreh from scratch. This seems to be unique. Is there another part of the year where even two difference changes are me'akev? In Eretz Yisrael, Tal Umatar begins only two weeks after Geshem, but in Chu"l, I don't think there's ever a situation where even two of those apply at the same time. Even on Aseres Y'mei Teshuva, which has six changes (Zachrenu, Mi Kamocha, HaMelech Hakadosh, HaMelech Hamishpat, U'chsov, B'sefer), only one of them is critical. I'm not sure if there is any special significance to all this. I just wanted to point it out in case it might help others pay more attention and not forget the changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 08:10:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:10:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73622773-BB32-4FA9-B6ED-CFF33EF6C253@optimum.net> RMGR: > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. > I would have thought just the reverse. If there?s a halachic foundation all it requires is a psak. When the behavior is extra-halachic we may require hataras nedarim. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 09:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:12:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:06:02AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) ... :> We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. :> (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO : This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually : once started a thread here called "What can't God do?". Some examples: : Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? : Can God lie? The Moreh discusses both points. 1- Omnipotence is really a statement that nothing lies beyond his Potency than insisting He posesses an infinite amount of power. 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless nonsense clauses. The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Why? It would be pure Tov, not Chesed. : Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. Thus the idea I labeled #1 above from the Moreh, and his via negativa. R' Moshe Taqu infamously takes the opposite approach -- it would be presumptuous to define G-d even to the extent of insisting that we must limit ourselves to defining what He Isn't. RMT therefore insists we must accept the descriptions in Tanakh uncritically. (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, one way or the other.) :> (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a :> prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil :> to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. : Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general : problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, : God, : have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods : may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. : So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God : really want that? Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congential birth defects and other such natural evils. This could be one element in a broader answer. And that was sort of my point... By ignoring the whole subject of theodicy, Dr Haslanger misses the main point she would need to refute. As an aside, a central part of RYBS's hashkafah is that much of free will is choosing between goods that are in dialecitcal tension. More often than a pure good vs evil choice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? the tragic which :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427170529.GB29457@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:41:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah wrote: : Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you : should also say something harsh to him : : This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the : harsh attack. Maybe it's true by definition. A rasha is someone who is beyond listening. And the child ready to hear the soft response isn't a rasha. I saw someone suggest haqheih here is meant in the sense of morbid craving, not blunting. As in Y-mi Shevi'is 4:6 (vilna 12a) "Amar Rabbi Avun: derekh haqeihus okhelin oso". And shinav -- in the sense of veshinantam. In which case, you have the pretty idea: Make him crave his studies. But it doesn't work. "Haqhei es shinav" is an idiom that is used elsewhere by Chazal, such as Sotah 49a (2x). (There is also "anavim qeihos" as unripe or sour grapes in Avos 4:20, but that may just be a third usage.) But since haqhei es shinav is an idiom, maybe the idiomatic meaning is far milder than a literal translation. Like "shut him up". (Edginess of my translation intentional, to relay the aggressiveness implied by the idiom.) :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:21:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:21:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> On 04/27/2016 12:12 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore > part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. > But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, > any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless > nonsense clauses. > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. CS Lewis agreed with the Rambam. See my .sig Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach bigvul". The purpose of creation, Chabad says, and of all our avodah, is to make Him a "dira batachtonim", which is a logical impossibility. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 13:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed : >create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", : and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach : bigvul".... Nowadays there are multiple logics. Some are just mathematical playthings, but many are used in the real world. (The two I somewhat know are fuzzy logic, used in many problems like thermostats, to represent predicates like "hot" which has varying degrees of truth; and quantum logic, used in subatomic physics.) Speaking of non-classical logics , I heard RYBS discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. Because RYBS's topic was how bein hashemashos is actually both days at once. This explains why an esrog used one day is assur BHS because it's the same day and then assur the next day because it was also BHS -- the start of that day. But the notion of noone special logic makes the Rambam's idea that logic is part of Truth and thus of His Essence much harder to support. You would have to go meta, and speak of the usability of various logics in general. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 14:46:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:46:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name>,<20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> > > Speaking of non-classical logics > , I heard RYBS > discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which > he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows > for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that > halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. ---------------------- I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law of the excluded middle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle Moadim lsimcha 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 Apr 27 18:35:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:35:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: I had asked: > Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many > publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that > kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. > But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this > question in writing, and gives his reasoning. Yes! "Medical Halachah for Everyone" [1980, Feldheim] by Abraham S. Abraham MD, page 82, gives a specific procedure for an Ashkenazi who is suffering from diarrhea and needs to eat rice on Pesach, and then writes: > Separate utensils must be used for cooking and eating such foods on Pesach. His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf Hachayim). Then, he discusses at length whether or not a (Ashkenazi) guest needs to worry if his (Sefardi) host used those keilim in the past 24 hours, and several related situations. HOWEVER -- I am shocked by how different this halacha appears in Dr Abraham's book, and in the sefer he cites. I concede that the Kaf Hachayim does cite several problems that the Ashkenazi should be concerned with, and I concede that Dr Abraham's procedure safeguards against them all. But it also conjures up additional problems that the Kaf Hachayim was NOT worried about. Some might say that I am being too hard on a "kitzur sefer" that tries to service the layman by packing a lot of information into a few pages. I say: On the contrary! His book could have been two words shorter if he had left out the words "and eating". If the kli rishon is okay after 24 hours, I would imagine that the kli sheni is okay even sooner. Oh - here's another thing: The Kaf Hachayim was talking about a *healthy* Ashkenazi who eats from Sefardi keilim. I think that if Dr Abraham is going to apply those halachos to an Ashkenazi *choleh*, maybe he should cite a posek on it. Caveat lector! Check the sources whenever you can! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:20:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > > > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. > > He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any > of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf > Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the beginning of the first volume? Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:29:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Old Audio Tapes Message-ID: <57581d198d4c45e5863bdf9e300d7dac@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Our shul is getting rid of a large number of old shiurim on audio cassettes and CD's. Does anyone know of any digitization projects that might be interested before they are disposed of? Kol Tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 09:26:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:26:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] I shall sing to Hashem for He is exalted above the arrogant Message-ID: <1461860967014.47103@stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/gmsnkks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 30 12:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:29:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Matzik l'rabim Message-ID: <5725078F.7070109@zahav.net.il> Rav Asher Weiss discusses a case in which a small number of graves are found in a place that is not designated to be a beit qevarot. This piece of land is slated for a large construction project, which would in all likelihood mean damaging the graves. He discusses various reasons for moving (or not moving) the graves. One of the ideas that he brings up is "matziq et harabim" (damage to the public). He concludes that this reason wouldn't apply here; the claim "matziq et harabim" can be used to permit moving graves only if the graves cause teumah to kohenim. Why would forcing kohenim to take a different path (possibly a very small detour) be sufficient reason to move graves but a major building project not? PS: For a variety of other reasons, RAW permitted moving the graves. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:24:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 19:24:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: in response to David Riceman's suggestion - extra-halachic behaviour is likely to require Hatarah whilst those that have a Halachic foundation require a Pesak consider this: if there is no Halachic foundation for a Minhag then it will never require Hatarah, it is an error. The custom to sniff snuff in Shule on Shabbos can never gain status of a Minhag that requires Hatarah if there is some Halachic foundation then notwithstanding it not being recognised as binding Halacha, if it is adopted as a custom it may well require Hatarah if one wishes to abandon the custom Therefore since we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation of there being a risk that wet Matzos may become Chamets, the Minhag of Gebrochts is no different to the Paroches being blue or maroon and suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 08:34:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 11:34:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: I have a question about an Old French word that appears in a Rashi. I hope that someone on the list is fairly fluent in French, or has access to such a person. But first, an introduction... It is not unusual for an English-speaker to refer to Rosh Hashana as the "New Year", or to Yom Kippur as the "Day of Atonement". These are legitimate translations, and it is clear to me that they are used in certain circles. In contrast, the name of Chanuka is generally not translated; it is transliterated or adapted into English as Chanukkah or Hanuka or something similar, but translations like "Festival of Dedication" (and "Festival of Lights", which isn't really a translation at all) are much rarer. But this post is not about those holidays; it is about the one we just completed. I have long thought that the English language was unique, in that we have a translation for the name Pesach, namely "Passover". I concede that although we might perceive of "Passover" as a basic word of simple English, it was actually coined by William Tyndale in the early 1500s, for the specific purpose of translating the root "pesach" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible#Legacy). Be that as it may, it *IS* an easily-understood term for any English-speaker, most especially in the contexts of Shmos 12:11-13: "They will eat the Passover offering... and I will pass over them..." and Shmos 12:27: ?It is the Passover offering, to G-d Who passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt..." I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the focus on the experiential story. But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:16:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:16:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 11:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 20:13:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> On 4/27/2016 7:09 PM, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: > I don't know on what basis the digests say that you need separate kelim > for kitniyos. The taam of kitniyos that is absorbed into the pot in > which it was cooked is automatically batel. I think it's just recommended > for a heker, so you'll remember not to eat kitniyos yourself, and not > really necessary at all. > And if you know before Pesach that you're going to cook kitniyos for > next Shabbos, you'll leave it out of the chometz cupboard. I read various guides about this Shabbat. To sum up the issues involved: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. 2) Does the eiruv tavshilin cover cooking kitniyot? Since you would be cooking the rice/beans when they are assur to you, maybe teh ET doesn't cover it. However according to Rav Shlomo Zalman, if one lives in a place in which there are Sefardim, the theoretical possibility that a Sefardi person would stop over is enough. 3) Checking the kitniyot: One has to check the kitniyot for chameitz. I personally bought Kitov rice that had been checked twice and only a third check was required. Why they didn't check it a third time, I don't know. 4) Anything cold (eg chummus) isn't a problem at all. 5) Addendum: This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issues. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:45:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 12:45:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Simon Montagu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < >> He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any >> of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf >> Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the > beginning of the first volume? > > Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two > possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera > Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is > the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! Hazon Ovadiah on the Haggada (note 8 on page 55 of the 5739 edition) brings some of the same sources, without so many rashei teivot: Shu"t Zera Emet helek 3 (helek Orah Hayyim siman 48) http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=742&st=&pgnum=122 Hukkat Hapesah siman 453 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7855&st=&pgnum=172 But as far as I can tell none of the sources are directly addressing the question of an Ashkenazi cooking kitniot in his own house, as opposed to being invited to a Sephardi. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 14:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 17:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: On Areivim, in the thread "kitniyot", R' Ben Waxman wrote: > It doesn't make sense to me that the only holiday in which > the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor has become so > divisive that people would consider not eating with family. My guess is that "the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor" is a reference to how the Korban Pesach must be eaten. I certainly can't argue with that, but there is much more to this story. The Pesach 5776 issue of YU's "Torah To-Go" has an article titled " Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach" (the url is too long; just google the title and you'll find it) by Rabbi Yona Reiss, who writes: > The late Belzer Rebbe (Rav Aharon Rokeach zt"l) brings a > different source for the custom of not eating in others' > homes on Pesach, noting that only with respect to Shavuot > and Sukkot does the Torah mention the notion of rejoicing > together with others (Devorim 16:11, 16:14), but not with > respect to Pesach. Therefore the scriptural implication > is that on Pesach there may be a basis for parties to > refrain from joining each other for their meals. BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 19:38:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:38:35 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> `On the matter of Gebrochts, R?MG Rabi wrote in Issue 43 > Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to > make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not > a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. > > RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on > the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. > and in Issue 44 > May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a > custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - > as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. Mori V?Rabbi R? Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to eat soft matzot. The Ramah quotes the minhag that the matzos should be thinner than an etzba ...the soft matzos are thinner just like what color you have on the poroches is not a minhag, it is a matter of taste. Not every little sneeze is considered a minhag. However, if a person descends from chassidishe families and they have a minhag not to eat gebrokts *unless someone should pasken for him that this is a minhag shtus or a minhag b'taus, it would not even help to make a Hatoras nidorim*. Hatoras nidorim for a minhag only works if it is a *personal* minhag. The baal ha'neder has to request from the beis din the ha'tora. *If an entire community has a minhag, you have to get the entire kehilla to be matir the neder. One member of the community cannot be matir the neder on his own*. Just like if a person decides that he does not want to wait six hours between milchig and fleishig, he cannot be matir the neder, *he* is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years ago when the matzohs were much thicker. The concept of dovor sh'bminyan, etc. that even if one lives in a generation when the reason for the takanah no longer applies, the takanah is still binding, only applied to takonos d'rabbonon and *does not apply to minhogim*. The Ramah in his teshuvos writes like this and rashi in the first perek in Beitza writes the same. If I am not mistaken, I think the very last teshuva in Achiezer volume 3 by r. chaim ozer writes the same.? I conclude that we should be much more careful before attempting to extrapolate from Poskim of the enormous stature of Mori V?Rabbi. Dr. Isaac Balbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 22:01:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:01:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Best, Meir G. Rabi On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah > wrote: > : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the > illustration > : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in > force > : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] > > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza > on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for > me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable > hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:28:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:28:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically. And after the kitniyos were cooked in it the issur is automatically batel; the taam of kitniyos in the walls is surely less than 50%! -- 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 Sun May 1 21:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5726D8FF.6020709@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 05:48 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this > way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is > especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. I believe it got started because on Pesach there are so many different standards that it's often difficult to be sure that this is the case. Even if the host has more chumros than the guest, they may be different ones, and there will be something the guest doesn't eat and the host does. Detailed inquiry about these matters may be embarrassing. If the guest is certain that the host's standards are as strict or stricter than his own in all matters, then AFAIK the minhag doesn't apply. -- 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 Mon May 2 03:42:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160502104240.GB10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:01:51PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza : > on Pesach.... :> no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Well it doesn't need to be. Topics drift. However, I would ask whether RHS would compare Ashkenazi matzah styles to fashion rather than minhag if he could not prove there was a time when Ashkenazim too used soft matzos. You were using his idea as an example of minhag requiring a halachic foundation, that the risk gebrochts avoids be a real one. I don't see that. (It would also do wonders to qitniyos if that question were admissible.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:48:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:38:35PM +1000, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Mori V'Rabbi R' Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) : "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to : eat soft matzot.... : he is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to : say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years : ago when the matzohs were much thicker...." Why quote RTG when the Pischei Teshuvah said it first? OTOH, in the same generation, the SA haRav says that gebrochts only makes sense *after* we started counting kneading time toward the 18 min. And as a pragmatic matter, they both were very likely part of the same change in matzah-making norms. (If you have less time to bake matzos now that kneading ate up some of the time, you need thinner matzos.) I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old could the minhag have been? And if so, could RTG's theory be correct even in our day? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:51:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:51:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 05:12:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:12:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I saw somewhere that ein veatlim issur lechatchila doesnt apply to minhagim. Question: can one cook gebrochs on the 7th day of Pesach for the 8th day (for those who dont eat gebrochs 7 days). This was particularly relevant this year when the 8th day was shabbat. --------------------------------- On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 04:52:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57273F64.2010405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:51 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. > > : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're > : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste > : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... > > To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing > something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior > reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. This should be obvious, because if it were not so then it would always be forbidden to cook kitniyos, or anything else that is batel berov, even in keilim designated for this. -- 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 Mon May 2 04:57:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572740B0.9050306@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:48 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's > theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not > causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because > the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- > their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is > no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old > could the minhag have been? It wasn't even a generational change. The Alter Rebbe says it was only "these last twenty years or more", i.e. within his own memory. -- 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 Mon May 2 07:02:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 10:02:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:12 AM 5/2/2016, R. Akiva Miller wrote: >BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a >question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have >legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 07:28:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 08:28:08 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Old French In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at May 2, 2016 03:12:46 am Message-ID: <14621956880.190dB.12358@m5.shachter> > I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to > have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According > to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in > French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be > transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than > Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when > they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on > an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the > focus on the experiential story. > But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After > explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes > (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in > ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for > Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." The French word for "step" is "pas". In Rashi's time the 's' was pronounced. That gives you the first two consonants of the p-s-x root. The third consonant is an aspirate which, although it never drops out in inflected forms like the h does, might still be considered dispensible by an aspirational (sorry, I couldn't resist) etymologist willing to cut corners. It is a bogus albeit tempting etymology, like the ones you see in Hirsch. > A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been > inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but > that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the > question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How > do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? > And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? I can't tell you how the French of Rashi's time referred to Pesax. There are no French translations of the Hebrew Scriptures dating to then. The French Jews probably said "Pesach". That's what Yiddish speakers say today and I have no reason to think that their ancestors did any differently. French Jews nowadays -- who speak, by and large, French, although there are some who speak Arabic among themselves -- also say "Pesach", usually. Sometimes they say "Paque" (circumflex accent on the 'a' deliberately omitted because the Avodah digest software chokes on it, which is unfortunate, because the circumflex, which always indicates a missing 's', would be highly informative if you could see it), which is the correct French word, but it is rare for them to do so. I don't like saying "Paque" because it is also the French word for "Easter" and thus evokes a disagreeable sense of linguistic imperialism, even though the imperialism is almost certainly operating in the other direction here, I would think -- taking a Hirschian risk here, but there are worse people to emulate -- that the French word for "Easter" obviously comes from p-s-x. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:26:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:26:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tenets of faith Message-ID: > (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R > Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes > that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT > actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, > one way or the other.) Raavad : Born : 1125, Narbonne, France Died : 1198, Vauvert, France R, Moshe ben Chasdai Taku: 1250-1290 CE So Raavad couldn't have referred to R Taku -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 08:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57276FE3.4040104@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 08:12 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. Why does it need to be hefsed merubeh. Mechiras chometz is 100% valid, and everyone is entitled to rely on it no matter how easy it would be not to. If people want to be machmir for themselves that's very nice but they have no right to expect other people to follow their crazy chumros, any more than they follow those of other people. > OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. > Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the > supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? It seems to me that this attitude rests on a fujndamental amhoratzus: the idea that chametz she'avar alav hapesach is an inherent issur, an issur cheftza, so that if you hold for some reason that mechiras chometz is somehow flawed then you must hold that to the same extent the food sold is tainted. But chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a kenas on the owner for deliberately or negligently transgressing Bal Yera'eh Uval Yimatzei. Therefore even if you don't wish to rely on mechiras chametz, and destroy all your own chametz rather than sell it, the shopkeeper is not obligated to share your crazy chumra, and when he sold his chametz you must admit that he did so beheter gamur. If so, he doesn't deserve a kenas, so his chametz remains permitted even to you. -- 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 Mon May 2 10:03:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:03:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X isn't good enough". Ben On 5/2/2016 2:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store > can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are > communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these > contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel > its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:35:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim Message-ID: R Isaac, Please provide the references for the Shut Ramah and the Rashi in the first Perek Beitza. As for the Achiezer, that quite clearly supports the assertion that ONLY if the practice of not being MeNaker the hind-quarters is associated with a Halacha can it have any sort of binding power. It is truly confounding to see some people asserting the views of various Rabbanim without ever finding it necessary to actually do more than tell a story or tell us that the Posek said "it" to a friend or "it" was heard directly. For example we just had someone quote RHS saying a Halacha from the Rama, which the Rama does NOT say - this seriously undermines the credibility. Neither should we accept the report that RHS Paskened that those who do not eat Gebrochts require a Pesak that it is a Shtus because Hatarah does not work since a community has followed this practice, and the entire kehilla requires Hatarah. That's like an entire Kehilla following the practice of using royal blue for the Paroches. Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation, is a Dovor ShaBeMinyan, is pretty close to fantasy. Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from stories and hearsay from Poskim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:53:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502165329.GE14957@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:29AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from : stories and hearsay from Poskim. Are you REALLY saying that RIB should not accept an answer he personally received from his own rebbe? Or that we shouldn't accept that he can quote that answer verbatum, albeit with a "(emphasis is mine)"? If that's not sufficient evidence of a person's position, no quote on the list works, and we might as well shut down. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 10:37:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:37:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502173731.GF14957@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:12:10PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can : sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that : don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? Don't buy all chameitz that has been sold, or all chameitz that was "sold" by a store than then proceeded to leave it on the shelves and sell individually over Pesach? The latter is the nearest I've seen in my experience to such communities. After all, it's more ready to conclude that the initial sale of all chameitz was a meaningless asmachta, and not a real sale than it is to conclude the storeowners were selling someone else's merchandise and stealing the profits. But if you mean that people aren't supposed to buy properly sold chameitz, yes that makes no sense -- the storeowner still suffers a hefsed merubah, just days later. In any case, I do not think we still hold that mechiras chameitz requires the hefsed to be merubah. OTOH, it's more than merely a "crazy chumerah", as Zev puts it. According to the Bach (OC 448 "ve'im") mechiras chameitz of the sort where nothing actually is moved to space the nakhri already owns was originally promulgated as a widespread practice specifically for "yayin saraf" dealers, and only because they can't move their full merchandise. (The actual mechanism is in the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6.) Resisting growth of a heter to include boxes we could just throw into the trunk of our car is quite different than "crazy chumerah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:24:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:24:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" mindset). Ben On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus > standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the > would-be guest"? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 01:03 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the > custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after > Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X > isn't good enough". 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how silly you think their reason. 2. As far as I'm concerned the "baked after Pesach" stickers are merely an indication that the product is fresh. -- 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 Mon May 2 12:21:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:21:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> <57279663.5050102@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727A8CE.4040308@zahav.net.il> From: Eli Turkel via Areivim > The following is probably mostly for Israel MO and based on observations > and not statistics > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article by > a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see below) may apply). The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev Shabbat: 1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). 2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza 3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is practiced). So what is the difference in this case? Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? On 5/2/2016 8:03 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how > silly you think their reason. Of course you can't. However, community leaders can decide what message to transmit. I heard Rav Amar state in the strongest terms that there is no benefit to buying chameitz products from a non-Jew (instead of from a Jew who sold his chameitz). He also discouraged looking for the "baked after Pesach" label. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:05:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:05:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! -- 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 Mon May 2 11:21:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279A8F.5020203@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 02:24 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus >> standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >> would-be guest"? > In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this > chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they > didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate > their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at > least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are > (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" > mindset). 1. There's a lot more to standards, especially on Pesach, than which hechsherim one trusts. You might trust more hechsherim than your relatives do, but not use some product from *any* hechsher that they do use, or have some practise at home that they don't. 2. If you are indeed sure that you are not more machmir than them, then the custom of not mixing would not apply in that specific case. The minhag is subject to the guest's discretion, not the host's; all it demands of the hosts is not to take offence. -- 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 Mon May 2 11:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 04:58:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R'MG Rabi has incorrectly assumed that I heard or similar, the words I QUOTED from Mori VRabbi Rav Hershel Schachter. As a rule when I write that it is a quote, it is a quote. I am an academic. In fact, it was an email directly to me verbatim, which I received after Pesach from Mori VRabbi. Again, it is wrong to make suppositions. I did not provide any name in my question to him as that is entirely irrelevant. Regarding your substantive question for the exact sources etc I will ask, however, he is a very busy person effectively also the lone Senior Posek for OU (has Rav Belsky a'h been replaced?) and RIETS as well as his daily shiurim at RIETS and being Rosh Yeshiva and Kollel etc and you will appreciate that his answer to the query may not be immediate. Dr Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 13:07:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:07:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727B36A.7000303@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 03:22 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > On May 3, 2016 4:05 AM, "Zev Sero" > wrote: >> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: >>> Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation >> The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! > Correct, it's predicated upon factually incorrect information However on being challenged he refused to back this claim up. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 14:41:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:41:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can > indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. Zvi Lampel (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) [The attached PDF was identical to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/51283 -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 15:43:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 00:43:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: RAM mentioned that: > last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining > the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and > explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on > Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an > expression of stepping." ... and asked: > How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 > years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? As you yourself wrote earlier in that post, the French call the holiday paques (with an accent circonflexe on the a, but that renders badly on Avodah). It is derived from the Latin, like the Spanish pascua, too. I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke of genius that serves its purpose well. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 22:27:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 01:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: <64eee8.a68b9f3.445990cc@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach >....Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. ... [--RAM] And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL >>>>>> You don't inspect the host's kitchen because you don't eat in his house! That's the point! Chassidim and others have this minhag of "not mishing" on Pesach --" not mixing" our meals with other families. This custom of not eating at other people's houses on Pesach has its source in this, precisely: the desire not to insult anyone, not to embarrass anyone and not to hurt anyone's feelings on this of all holidays, the one holiday when we are all more careful than usual about what we will and will not eat. The "unfriendly" chassidishe minhag has a very friendly corollary, at least in chutz la'aretz where we have two days of yom tov: On the last day of Pesach we /davka/ go out to eat or invite others to our homes and make a point of "mishing." If you don't have anyone over for a meal at least you go out visiting other people's homes in the afternoon, and make a point of eating something there. It's sort of like a sukka hop, you try to visit a few different homes and also host a few different people in your home. At least this was the minhag in my family growing up and among the people I knew in my youth. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 23:35:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >>Two bundles of goods >>may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. >>So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God >>really want that? [--RDR] Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such natural evils. Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Properly speaking "evil" only refers to something that has a moral dimension. The question of "Why does G-d allow evil?" has an obvious answer -- to allow scope for bechira, for free will. That doesn't fully answer the question, of course. We see many cases where He thwarts the nefarious plots of our enemies, which leaves us with aching questions in those cases when He seemingly stands by and does /not/ thwart their plots -- the Holocaust being the most wrenching example. There are a lot of answers but perhaps none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be called evil at all (unless you want to impute evil motives to the Borei c'v!). Rather, here the question is "Why is there suffering in the world?" This is a different question from the question of why does He allow evil people to commit evil deeds. Again there are many different answers, some of which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as well as Divine reasons we can't think of. "Evil" and "suffering" can overlap, as when evil people cause other people to suffer, but they are still two different categories. BTW the idea that a benevolent G-d "couldn't" or "wouldn't" do this or that is an arrogant and ignorant idea, the product of puny human minds. And compared to our Creator, even the most brilliant human mind is puny. Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I did ask Him to take them away. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 04:10:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: I wrote: > This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of > the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? > > Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of > the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? #1) In the article cited, much was made of an incident when Rava went to visit Rav Nachman, who was Rava's rebbe, and was thus presumably at least as strict as Rava. (See the article for more information, and for various ways of understanding that gemara.) #2) I, personally, am not very knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of this practice, such as who follows it, or to what extent they follow it. That's whay I can't answer your question by pointing to people who won't even eat in their parents' homes; I have no idea whether or not this practice really goes that far. HOWEVER, I do presume that the author of the article is familiar with these things, and near the beginning of the article, he writes: > perhaps the most intriguing of Pesach stringencies is the widespread > minhag not to eat anyone else's food during the Pesach holiday, even > if the other person keeps their chumros. It seems from this that Rabbi Reiss *is* aware of people who avoid eating other food, even when they do know that their standards have not been otherwise lessened. There can be many ways of knowing this, without "make[ing] an inspection of the host's kitchen and review[ing] all of the products he uses ... insulting to the host", such as when they are close family members, or friends, and/or the host actually invites the guest to examine his products and practices. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 06:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:43:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah Message-ID: The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon are factually correct? Those I have communicated with seem to be incapable or unwilling. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:20:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:43:08PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, : anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon : are factually correct? Which fact are you not sure of: 1- That until a couple of decades before the teshuvah people did not count kneading time toward the kedei hilukh mil, and then people (at least around Easter Europe) did? 2- That rushing the kneading because it now has to fit within the mil along with baking time would increase the chance that there was unkneaded flour on or in the matzah? 3- That the Baal haTanya is brighter than you, and should be second-guessed with care? Even if someone known to be brilliant makes a mistake, you know it's not likely to be a trivial one. 4- Or, the original topic.... That I would find it unlikely that RMF would consider a minhag endorsed by the SA haRav should be dropped without very strong motive? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:28:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:28:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products; e.g, my wife makes mayonnaise for Pesach, although I no longer churn butter, as he did -- yeridas hadoros): I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.. I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no alternative. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:40:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503144014.GA18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:43:39AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also : be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that : gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the : meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke : of genius that serves its purpose well. Much of what gets called "chassidishe Torah" is similar -- it's not a real answer to the question posed, but it is real Torah. Presented in a way that makes a roshem on a listener. As for etymologies, I think there is also a gray area. "Yarmulka" is a term in a number of Slavic languages for whatever cap the locals wore. But if no one had created the folk etymology of "yarei Malka", would the term have become as widespread or as long-lived as it did? Historically, the name Shneiur is from Signor or perhaps Spanish Sen~or, or most likely the original Latin "Senior", which means "Zaqein", with all the implications of sagicity. But I think more Shneiurs today are named for the shnei or of Shabbos licht. Especially since that's why R Aharon and Rn Rivqah Chanah Perel Kotler chose the name for their son, born Friday evening. (BTW, RSK was a dapper looking man in his Chevron days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Kotler#/media/File:Rabbi_Shneur_Kotler.jpg Found it while looking to confirm the story about when he was born.) OTOH, Marche-shvan vs "Mar Cheshvan" has halachic import, and one cannot let the folk etymology cause people to write the wrong thing on a gett; nor to forget that the month names were from galus Bavel, and not related to the Hebrew word "mar". But in general, folk etymologies too have causitive power. (It's just that in my last example, I think we need to resist it.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:09:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:09:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> References: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160503150952.GB18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:38AM -0400, Rn Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without : Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents : for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. : : But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects : and other such natural evils. : I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Yes, but fixing my misspeech doesn't change my point. To apply the correction: Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. : none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that : we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. Does that necessarily mean we cannot know His Goals either, or only how they play out in practice? IOW, perhaps we can conclude that HYashem wants a world of hatavah, including being meitiv us with the joy of being able to be meitivim ourselves, without knowing why that means He would choose providing Tov in one case and why He left us on our own in another. : The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be : called evil at all... True, but if we correct my language, then the question too needs correction: How is the existence of *suffering* consistent with the Existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent G-d? : which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of : the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as : well as Divine reasons we can't think of. Including free will. For all I know, Hashem lets certain diseases foster because He Wants to give us the opportunity to cure them. That does not address His Choice of victims, though. I suggested four answers to theodicy, keneged arba banim: The chakham doesn't really answer it, he instead asks "How does Hashem want me to respond?" The rasha gets yisurim as punishment. In the Haggadah we tell him that its not the tragedy that is leading him to rejecting G-d its his rejection of G-d that led him to the tragedy. The tam gets yisurim shel ahavah. He didn't do anything wrong, but he is shaken out of the rut that keeps him from trying to be a chakham. And the she'eino yodea' lish'ol gets the life he does because, well, there are times where the thing we want is a greater nisayon, than the situation we find tragic. And if we are not up to the challenge, if its a test that we couldn't pass, G-d doesn't make us face it. I say it better and with more backing at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pesach-5761-the-four-sons-confront-tragedy But my point in my earlier post wasn't whether or not theodicy is answeable, but that the issue of theodicy was simply ignored by the philosophy professor giving the online course I pointed to. Which, in turn, was why I thought that a translation of something R Sherky said to university students (repeated from Twitter) requires more examiunation of the original. To repeat (since I find this topic more useful than trying to answer tzadiq vera lo): : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? "Can't find"? This professor of philosophy missed a huge theological topic. My guess is that "lo nimtza" was translated overly literally and RYS was replying to questioned for which no answer exists. And yes, someone should be intellectually honest enough to give up his religion if it really were disproven. An impossible hypothetical (we know a Torah-follower's religion won't ever really be disproven, beyond minor misunderstood peratim); so not very meaningful, but not something it would shock me to hear a rav say. : Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. : But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, : a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, : and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I : really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained : from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I : did ask Him to take them away. I said something similar recently about "lir'os es atzmo ke'ilu hu yatza miMitzrayim" . I wrote about how the RBSO put into process even before I was born events that caused my lymphoma to be diagnosed while still in stage 1, BH and ba"h. A rare form of lymphoma that (as of 2010) had only afflicted two other people, both rescue workers who helped look for their comrade's remains in the weeks after 9/11. Here's just the post-script: To be intellectually honest: The story loses some of its impact if you think about Office Ryan and Firefighter Endicott's families, who lost their love ones specifically because they were determined to give other rescue workers' families the closure of being able to make a funeral. On 9/11 itself, for every story retold of someone who was spared being there because they were out doing some mitzvah is a story of someone who seems no less deserving who was killed in the attack. Every life has its own story. I cannot know G-d's calculus in my own, never mind in others'. But the mystery of tzadiq vera lo (why the righteous suffer) doesn't free me from feeling grateful for the good in my life (hakaras hatov) and feeling thankful to the ones -- or in this case the One -- who provide it (hoda'ah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503151406.GC18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:28:43PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which : had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products... : I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree : of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted : practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no : alternative. Which is the only way the minhag could be non-offensive. I am reminded of the rav who establishes a policy not to eat in any mispallel's home, so that no one is offended by their rabbi having to judge their home's kashrus as insufficient. Still, I think it would be elegant if people who have the minhag of misht zikh nisht adopt the minhag of Maimouna. We might not be able to eat together on Pesach, but let's all share the simchas Isru Chag! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 10:08:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160503170842.GD18204@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:46:56PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law : of the excluded middle. : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle However, not only does RYBS's discussion of bein hashemashos really rely on defying the law of contradiction by saying "both" rather than the excluded middle's "something in between", so does his invocation of "almanas isa" and "isa lashon safeiq hu" -- safeiq is a dough. For that matter, the same could be said of erev (although RYBS didn't) -- an irbuvia of day and night. So I think that RYBS actually meant that halakhah had no law of contradiction. Which may be a consequence of allowing middle values between yes and no, I haven't found it spelled out anywhere. BTW, the notion that a tenai needs to be said in both positive and negative is also relevant, as only saying "I promise to do X if Y" is insufficient if Y could be both true and false or somewhere between true and false -- in those cases, whether or not I commit to doing X is ambiguous. Eg "I promise to do X if the next person to enter the room is tall" would lead to a she'eilah if the person walking in is a 5'11" American man (where Google the average is 5'10"). "Tall" is a non-boolean predicate -- a person could be somewhat tall, and not just because it's a matter of opinion, but between there is a gray area about the bottom of the set. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:19:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 01:19:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I am seeking the facts that the Teshuvah employs to support a Halachic ruling that Gebrochts is Assur. so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - 1] until a couple of decades beforehand kneading time was not included in the kedei hilukh mil time 2] this reduced production time created a credible risk of flour remaining in the baked Matzah? I am nowhere near the lofty heights of the BaAl HaTanya. But I am commanded, as is all of BNY, to learn and question and as R Ch Voloshiner says [Paskens?] we are not permitted to accept a ruling or a Peshat if there are questions that remain unanswered. It seems that we are having a dispute about RMF arguing with a Minhag endorsed by the SA HaRav. I propose that since Gebrochts is without Halachic foundation, it does not require Hatarah. Others think this is impossible since the SH HaRav endorses Gebrochts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:55:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:55:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160503185522.GA28828@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:19:27AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 . (Same as when we had this same conversation 3 years ago.) Twenty years is mentioned on 476, the paragraph that beging "Ve'af" -- "...ad shemiqarov zeh esrim shanah o yotseir, nishpatah zehirus zu beYisrael qedoshim, lemaheir me'od me'od belishah..." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 20:12:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5728E9FB.8010609@zahav.net.il> A close friend told me that he his uncle (and family) would come to his father's home for seder (in Poland before the war), bring his own food and table cloth, and by doing this was considered to be meiqil. Ben On 5/3/2016 4:28 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on > Pesach, unless there was no alternative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 09:42:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jonathan Traum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> Message-ID: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> > Lisa Liel wrote: >>> According to >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >>> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's >> berakhah >> of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw >> from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? I can't say with any authority what was in Yaakov Avinu's thoughts there, but lion imagery in the ancient world certainly does seem to predate him. On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > ... > But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's > question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves > are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The king of the wild animals is the lion..." Jonathan Traum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:12:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah Message-ID: In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on the other. Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from joining together for a meal 2) RSZA always took simchat shabbat/yomtov into account in his piskei halacha. A rabbi who is machmir not to allow using a shabbat elevator may be forcing someone who lives on the 30th floor to spend every shabbat without a minyan and without any company and certainly without oneh shabbat. RSZA was an advocate of tzomet because he felt it important to help especially the disadvantaged. Thus, he felt it important to invent a wheelchair good for invalids that can be used on shabbat 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also important even when it relies on DNA evidence. This is just a sampling of many areas where some poskim try and be conservative while RMA insists that just blindly doing the old thing is not necessarily the conservative or macmir way. His favorite analogy is a group of people who live in the tropics and wear swimwear. Because of circumstances they move to a colder area. There now arises a dispute should they continue to wear swimwear because thats what their ancestors wore or do they change to warmer clothing. The change is also meant to be conservative: the ancestors wore clothing that matched the climate and so they should wear clothing that match the clothing. The reformists change clothing simply because they dont care what the ancestors wore -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 13:15:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 16:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> Message-ID: <572906F0.5020105@sero.name> On 05/03/2016 12:42 PM, Jonathan Traum via Avodah wrote: > On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> >But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's >> >question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves >> >are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? > ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The > king of the wild animals is the lion..." Yes, it does now. As the result of this discussion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 14:45:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:45:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <000801d1a585$16ecdbf0$44c693d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RET wrote > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article > by a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel And RBW replied: >RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see >below) may apply). >The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev >Shabbat: >1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). >2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza >3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. >Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. >Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is >practiced). So what is the difference in this case? >Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? Of course, this is just a reiteration of the discussion we had last year - here is my post. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n069.shtml#10 The positions cited here appear to be taken directly from the Rav Poelim. See the citation there regarding the issur of handling food on fast days. >Ben Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 06:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos Message-ID: RBen Waxman cited the following: "This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issue." Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 05:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:04:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] women cutting hair in the omer Message-ID: I just saw that ROY paskens that women are allowed to cut their cut during the sefirah. Does anyone know if this is widely accepted? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 14:43:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:43:42 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Avoid situations that embarrass In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline. A story that displays a slightly different perspective - the visitor who insisted on drinking his tea in the host's Succah when the host who was not enjoying the best of health was entertaining the guest in his house. The host accompanied his guest explaining to the now uncomfortable guest, I am exempt from the mitzvah of Succah but obligated in the mitzvah of Hachnossas Orchim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 17:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160505004747.GB22983@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:34:09PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The : Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish : Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside : world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to : others subunits (e.g. ethnic). I am curious to see that article, because I would have thought the causality was the reverse. The Rama knew of an Ashkenazi mesorah that had numerous differences with Sepharadi pesaq since well before the SA. It was on that basis thyat he was able to categorize the SA as "their" rulings. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 11th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 strict justice? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 04:50:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:50:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would > be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in > the universe at all. > > But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. > Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence not a real good at all. But suppose we leave the world of mussar, where my goal is to grow spiritually by becoming a better person, and improving the relationship between myself and Hashem. Instead, let's focus on getting more social. It's not that I want to improve myself, but that I want to do things that other people will benefit and get pleasure from. In a world where people are busy interacting, but the laws of nature prohibit Nazis, the problem is not that good doesn't *exist*. The problem is that good isn't recognized or appreciated. Everyone is always doing nice things to everyone else, so much so that the beneficiaries don't notice it. Not because they are ungrateful, but because they literally don't notice it -- they have nothing to compare it to. This is how the world runs. What else might one expect? And THAT's why there is "no real good in the universe at all." Ad caan, RMB's reisha. But this only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Evil -- or at least the potential for it -- is necessary so that we can appreciate the good. What about congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering? My first reaction is to give the same answer as above: No one will appreciate good health unless bad health is a possibility. And then I feel ashamed of my insensitivity, my hardheartedness, my callousness. How can I not cry for the babies struggling in pain, just so I can score some points in this discussion? But, truth be told, that insensitivity reared its head many paragraphs ago, when we first contemplated "a world without Nazis". Are the victims of "naturally caused suffering" entitled to more consideration than the victims of Nazi-caused suffering? I don't think so. My heart goes out to both of them, to all of them, and I feel guilty, wondering about where my heart is when I thank G-d for the good He has given me. I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 20:02:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 05:02:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> On 5/3/2016 8:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on > the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on > the other. > > Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) > > 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be > machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without > kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from > simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from > joining together for a meal. If the parents of a Sefardi son in law > can provide him with halaq meat 52 weeks out of a year, he can deal > with their rice issue one week a year. I know that I sound like a broken record but . . . We have a long history of chumrot in kashrut and a long history of dealing with them. Kintiyot can be dealth with, halachakly and culinarily, just like almost all of these issues. Having an in law with food allergies is going to present much more of a challenge to a host than having an in law who doesn't eat rice. > > > 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most > halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is > overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity > might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone > agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA > points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as > inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also > important even when it relies on DNA evidence. > For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:08:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:08:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: yom hazikaron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the importance of standing during the siren on yom hazikaron by Rav Stav (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=4174 on aveilut vs chol hamoed during sefira by Rav Cherlow (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=5629 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:20:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 18:20:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572B72D1.2030303@zahav.net.il> Rav Tawil was basing himself on a psak given by Rav Ovadia Yosef, tz"l, which is summarized here: http://halachayomit.co.il/he/Default.aspx?HalachaID=3938 KT Ben On 5/4/2016 3:26 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > ? ? ? Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet > repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, > even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would > seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. > ? > EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:15:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:15:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben _____________________________________________ IMHO DNA is a real Pandora's box which it seems that poskim are taking an approach that to an outsider might be viewed as pragmatic (vs intellectually mandated) by accepting it as a secondary sirgn but not primary so as to specifically not get into the parentage issue. What will happen when everyone's dna/genetic map is available feom a simple stick test? 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:24:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:24:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1255?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=96_=EE=F1=E5?= =?windows-1255?b?+OQg4fnh5fIg4Of4IPTx5w==?= Message-ID: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160505154013.GF22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:50:01AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change : anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics : categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind : to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. I am not in your target audience, as I am happy with my current answer and thus probably too closed minded on this question to be influenced, but... : RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he : free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then : whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not : the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence : not a real good at all... Not my intent. Let me explain what I was trying to say from a different direction. What makes free will possible? The fact that we can think about thinking. Bechira chofshi and being aware of one's own thoughts and feelings (or a subset of them) go hand-in-hand. When we think about and make decisions based on that metacognizent "inputs" we are able to change how we think and truly exercise BC. I think this underlize REED's concept of a nequdas habechirah. It is only at the "battlefront" between two warring desires/drives that BC comes into play because it is only there that the decision happens slow even to occur consciously. You might recall that when we discussed tza'ar baalei chaim (in at least 2 iterations), I suggested that while animals feel pain, they have no "I" about which they could think "I am in pain". Pain, but without a critical element that turns it into true suffering. I gave a neurological argument -- animals lack the part of prefrontal cortext we use to do metacognizance, so why assume they can? Maybe when it comes to animals, the Behaviorists are right. But I also made a hashkafic argument. If a thinking being could be aware of the thinking itself, and think about thinking, it would have free will. Since only people have BC, which in the opinion of many (including the Meshekh Chokhmah) is that very tzelem E-lokim, they can't be self-aware of their thought. Pain as a stimulus away from something, but not "Oy am I in pain!" of true suffering on a human level. So I was making a philosophical point about the goodness. Not that it lacks worth of purpose, but the ability to enjoy good and the ability to make decisions go hand-in-hand. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:48:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:48:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160505154808.GG22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:02:38AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be : declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth : it? Mamzeirus is not a good example for a general discussion of chumeros. Kivan denitma nitma. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that we are to ignore most sefeiqos -- safeiq mamzer in a yichus-ly kosher community, or a mamzer in a safeiq community. (See for a nice discussion.) I think it would be assur to check mamzeirus using DNA, except in those few cases where we otherwise are chosheish for the safeiq anyway, like a shetuqi or asufi. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim Message-ID: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> H/T Mosaic Magazine See : Bible Odyssey Who Were the Sadducees? by Michael L. Satlow ... The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq, the name of the high priest at the time of King David (1Kings 1:39). Later sources also link the Sadducees to the priesthood (for example, Acts 4:1). However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. In the uproar that ensued, a Sadducee convinced Hyrcanus to abandon the Pharisees for the Sadducees. Whether true or not, this story might point to the Sadducees' origin as a political party allied with the Hasmoneans. Josephus tantalizingly mentions that the Sadducees ascribe authority to Scripture, not to the ancestral traditions handed down by the Pharisees: ... I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion i a dichotomy. Also, what kind of news is in that the Chashmonaim were in league with the Tzeduqim? Regardless of Josephus's story, why wouldn'tthe family that held the power of both Kohein Gadol and Melekh want to deprecate any form of Judaism that would make them share power with the rabbinate? Can the more historically informed please comment if this post is a non-story (which finding it in Mosaic Magazine led me to doubt) or what the chiddush is here? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:55:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:55:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=E2=80=93_=D7=9E?= =?utf-8?b?16HXldeo15Qg15HXqdeR15XXoiDXkNeX16gg16TXodeX?= In-Reply-To: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> References: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <572B7B0D.3050906@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 10:24 AM, Lawrence Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see > http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e 1) Every Ashkenazi siddur says that in summer we say vesein brocho and (in places where it's customary) morid hatol, and in winter we say tal umotor and mashiv horuach. Since we are now saying the former, it is summer, and wishing each other a good summer is therefore appropriate. 2) There is no pressure on anyone to bake a shlissel challah. The blogger is engaging in a fantasy so he can rant about it. Rather, every year we are subjected to ranting from opponents of this custom who can't bear the thought that some people do have it. The blogger has his mesorah, and good on him for adhering to it, but it is irrelevant to the vast majority of us who do not share it. Those who don't have this particular custom of are free not to do it, and nobody will denounce them for it; but they must have the same respect for those who do it, whether because their ancestors did it as far back as anyone knows, or because they heard about it last week and decided it sounded like a nice thing to do. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 10:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:19:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572B80AB.3050808@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 12:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. He was not accused of being a mamzer but a chalal, because his mother had once been kidnapped and was thus unfit to be married a kohen. We don't need to go to Josephus for this story, it's a braisa in Kiddushin 66a. > I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually > led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion > is a dichotomy. The article makes the same point: "In antiquity, there was no neat division between politics and religion". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 12:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:41:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <520b4de4-831a-8f00-6b0d-1cd935504656@starways.net> On 5/5/2016 7:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > See : ... > by Michael L. Satlow ... > ... > The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the > Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term > Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq... The myth that the Tzedukim got their name from Tzadok the Kohen Gadol has zero basis to it. Except maybe the quote from Acts, which has no weight. The origin of the Tzedukim appears in Avot d'Rabbi Natan, where we find that the eponymous Tzadok was one of the talmidim of Antigonus Ish Socho. > However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not > as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus > mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high > priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer]... Also, despite Josephus's claims, the accusation wasn't that he was a mamzer; it was that he was a chalal. The article is a non-story. Lisa [To be fair without bothering to post a full reply for something off-topic: The original had a word I wasn't comfortable repeating on-list, starts with a "b", so I assumed the usual back-translation to the Hebrew. I have no idea what Josephus actually wrote, nor do I expect a Xian to bother explaining chalal rather than use a general term for what used to be called an "illegitimate" child. So I don't know if it's Josephus's claims that's off or a miscommunication caused by my trying to be overly frummy. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:53:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know how you can say that. Admittedly, the Creator apparently wanted a world in which there are both Nazis /and/ birth defects, since that's the world He created. But there is a HUGE difference between the two -- between the pain caused by evil people through their own free will, and the suffering that occurs as the result of disease and other natural causes. One thought experiment will illustrate the difference. Imagine a mother whose child dies as the result of a birth defect. Let's even say the child dies after a period of pain and suffering. Now imagine another mother whose child dies because a Nazi snatched the child from her arms and killed the child in some sadistic way, in front of the mother's eyes. Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:29:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 06:29:53 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? or within it? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:22:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:22:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when > there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. > Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF > Every case is judged on its own. I was just an eid to a get of the sort, where certain kullot in the berurei sheimot were accepted because it was such a kind of get lechumra. In other situations, we may be quicker to allow a kitvu uttenu for a civil marriage divorce. As I said, every case is judged on its own. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:42:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:42:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrot Message-ID: In light of the comments of Rabbi Folger and others let me restate my opinion of chumrot. There are several levels of chumrot and kulot 1) The chumrah is personal and doesn't affect anyone else - perfectly OK but one shouldn't gloat or look down on those who don't accept the chumra 2) At the other extreme are things like monetary manners where every chumra for one side is a kula for the other side 3) For things in between one has to compare the chumra to the "price" being paid So for kitniyot - the prohibition is relatively mild but OTOH doing without the specific kitniyot is not a major deal either (in most cases) I personally get annoyed at husbands that won't carry (or push the carriage) even with an eruv but the wife does everything. I am not sure how much the women really volunteer. In any case the hardship is relatively mild (again in most cases) The harder cases are where the prohibition is more severe but the effects are more severe Examples from before include shabbat problems that might prevent one from leaving home every shabbat and ruining on a long term basis oneg shabbat. As Rabbi Folger points out various cases of gittin. Also cases involving DNA or other forms of controversial evidence. The main point R Avraham was making is that rabbis who take a "conservative: stance are not always being machmir since the effect on others may be severe. At times the more innovative approach may be the real conservative way. i.e. it saves the principle of the halacha rather than just some formality which is no longer relevant. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 07:59:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:59:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah Message-ID: RET wrote: > 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt > that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out > that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when > they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects > many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. Actually, that simply doesn't reflect the most widespread position on civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 05:34:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:34:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula Message-ID: <> Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one can't accept it in many other cases -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:14:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:14:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of > divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the > key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. > Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single > case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to > avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a > proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. > -- > Arie Folger, >> > chumrot that don't have side effects are fine. As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 16:29:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Schlissel Challah Message-ID: <20160506232927.GA27784@aishdas.org> Since everyone has to have a schlissel chalah post... Really I think it is about sources of yeast right after Pesach. There was no starter dough, so people would use beer foam. Beer foam yeast is too acrive for good dough. Fortunately, iron slows down yeast action. A key is a small convenient piece of iron to throw into the mix. But it is common for minhagim to be born from inventing reasons for things people already do. In this case... It relates to the key of rain and finances, described in Taanis 2, one of the three (or two of the four) keys that Hashem never delegates. If so, it is a reminder just as the wheat comes in, and. in the lands Ashkenazim were living in too. (The fresh grass which becomes a milk abundance just on time for Shavuos and Wittesmontag.) A reminder from Whom the spring wealth comes. And to thank Him accordingly, rather than to take credit. If so, ironically (for the naysayers), the custom is all about how wealth comes directly from G-d, not via angels, spiritual mechanisms, or tricks. Do you have a problem with dipping an apple in honey and other such simanei milsa of Rosh haShanah? Those too are symbols. The problem isn't with schlissel chalah. If people observed the custom for the kinds of reasons listed in this post, there would be nothing to object to. The problem I have is that it seems to have caught on beyond the original community because of people having magical thinking, trying to get HQBH to give them their wealth through segulah instead of (rather as inspiration for) the hard and long work of earning reward for being a better Jew. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 13th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 necessary for a good relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 14:26:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 00:26:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? Message-ID: I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). Shavua Tov, Hodesh Tov! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 19:49:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572EA93A.7030509@sero.name> On 05/07/2016 05:26 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). I am looking at a block of Tenuva salted butter, which bears the mehadrin hechsher of Tenuva's own rabbi, R Weitman, and also the hechsherim of the OU and Chug Chasam Sofer. I assume Chug Chasam Sofer is a mehadrin-only hechsher. Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk. It's also available in 10g and 200g with the mehadrin hechsher, and also in 10g and 100g with the hechsher of Badatz Edah Hacharedit. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=581 Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=582 However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to have this problem. http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/salted-butter http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/butter -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 21:35:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 07:35:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages > with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk... > > Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and > only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk... > > However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to > have this problem.... Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 22:00:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 01:00:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> On 05/08/2016 12:35 AM, Simon Montagu wrote: > > Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? Well, I don't see how it can be a halachic issue, since they do sell it with the mehadrin hechsher in the USA, to consumers whose kashrut standards are presumably the same those of Israeli mehadrin consumers. Nor, given the size and internal diversity of the Israeli mehadrin market, and its overlap with the USA one, can it plausibly be attributed to a cultural difference. What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available in 100g packs, in either country. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 8 20:36:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 06:36:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> Message-ID: <87b8dde5-91ed-0b4e-3d8f-268d85c4c13f@starways.net> On 5/8/2016 8:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available > in 100g packs, in either country. > The idea of salted butter was originally to be able to sell the butter longer. If the butter has gone off (rancid) a little, salting it hides that. So a lot of people refuse to buy salted butter, figuring that if it's unsalted, they *know* whether it's good or not, and they can always salt it themselves if they want. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 04:36:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:36:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RavSharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< ... Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. >>> The difference that I see, is that in one case the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards Hashem, and in the second case, the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards both Hashem and the Nazi. But as I understand this conversation, we are discussing theodicy, which is the question of "How can a good God allow such a thing to happen?" And in that regard I see no difference between the two cases. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 10:37:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160509173704.GA27325@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 05:41:13PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger :> The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can :> indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. : : I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... : where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in : fact it implies the opposite Then why would you think tht was the reference? Pesach 30 is where he discusses zeh le'umas zeh, so mybe they're talking about the implied lack of a law of contradiction? (Ie that creation comes in paradoxical pairs.) YOu are asking for a source for something I have been repeating since before its appearance in Avodah vol 1, something I learne from R' Aryeh Kaplan. Sources, even my notebook from those days, are not at hand. But I'm working on it -- al titya'esh. Actually, I am on the hunt for where I saw the point in seifer haHigayon. The Ramchal defined higayon as a tool the seikhel was given. I am just looking for where I found it explicit that logic was created for people. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 15:52:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi writes: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface > which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." > > May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? > > Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour > WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the kneading specifically. Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:02:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160510010206.GA9905@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 6:52pm EDT, R Akiva Miller: : I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then : flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, : I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the : kneading specifically. : Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? : I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 2:55pm EDT, I wrote: > Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos > Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 > . -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57313304.90006@sero.name> On 05/09/2016 06:52 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Teshuvah #6, in the Shu"t at the back of volume 6. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=486 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=487 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 20:09:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:09:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: Many thanks to R' Zev Sero and R' Micha Berger for sending me links to the HebrewBooks.org edition, and at almost the same instant. R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a > little flour on their surface which is a consequence > of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." I responded: > I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in > the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. > If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the > general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the > kneading specifically. I now suspect that the situation was a bit different than I had imagined. I would like to suggest that the matzos described by the Alter Rebbe had plain flour through and through, as a result of the dough being dry and hard, and difficult to knead, exactly as described. But the Rebbe complained only about the flour on the outside, and I suspect that this is because it presents a bigger halachic problem than the flour on the inside. I first got this feeling in the paragraph "V'hinei eineinu", though I can't point to any specific words where he might have said this. But in the paragraph "V'af d'haMagen Avraham", he is machmir on one who crumbles his matza into the soup, but he is meikil for one who puts matza balls into the soup. What I translated as "matza balls" are, more precisely in his words, "ground matza that they make into rounds (agulim)", and the room for leniency is because it can be judged to be a ta'aroves. I'm going into some detail here, because he is NOT talking about crumbling some matza into a dry bowl, which would contain a mixture of matza meal and flour, and the flour would lose its identity to the matza meal before it ever got wet. No, that's not what he is talking about. He makes explicit reference to these balls which were made previously, and were added to the soup afterward, I am at a loss to explain the advantage of these matza balls over one who crumbles his matza directly into the soup. The only advantage I see is that one who crumbles the matza into his soup is making chometz personally, whereas in the other case the chometz was made in the kitchen when the matza balls were fashioned. (Footnote 45 there might be saying something similar.) Be that as it may, it leads me to a very wild guess that when the dough is not kneaded well, it will have flour on the inside, and although one might think that this flour is subject to chimutz, the truth is that there is some room for leniency because that flour is batel to the matza itself. However, this leniency applies only to the flour inside the matza, and not to the flour on the outer surface of the matza. Again, this paragraph is only a wild guess that I offer to the group. (On a side point, I'd like to ask about the modern "hard (kasheh)" dough that the Alter Rebbe described. Why was it hard? I can understand spending less time kneading it so that it can be rushed into the oven, but the Rebbe seems to feel that the consistency of the dough changed too. Why would anyone think that using less water is a good idea? Kneading a bread dough is hard work, and it seems like common sense to me that if we want to knead it well, you'd use *more* water, not less. Does extra water accelerate the chimutz, independently of the temperature of that water?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 03:50:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:50:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach?" The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz that was sold to a goy in Israel because none of the hechsherim (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one is checking that it is true. See for example http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X9_D8LFI5O8/UWEoF_JIlgI/AAAAAAAAAc4/XDKyPFsMN7Q/s1600/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%94+%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8+%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.jpg Some people rely on checking product codes which tells them when the product was made. However, this is not that useful. All it says is that the product was made after Pesach. However, every Chometz product has chometz ingredients in it (at least flour which is most probably chometz because it was washed) and the consumer has no way of knowing when the chometz ingredients were made and who owned over them over Pesach. For example even if you only buy cookies that were made after Pesach you have no idea what flour was used. It is very possible/probable that the flour used to make the cookies was chometz and was sold for Pesach. Som people only eat things that were made with flour that was fround after Pesach. However there a problem with this as well. Flour in Israel is very low in gluten and therefore won't rise well unless gluten is added. All bakeries add gluten to the flour in all baked goods. There is no gluten produced in Israel, it is all imported mostly from Germany, France, and China. Gluten by definition is chamtez gamur . Because it needs to be imported gluten must be SOLD to a Goy over Pessach; unless the bakeries want to close shop for a few weeks waiting for a new shipment. Since they start making bread literally a few hours after Pesach is over they must be using gluten that they sold to a goy. Therefore, even if the bread says baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach, the gluten was most definitely sold and therefore you are relying on the sale to a goy. In other words they are pulling the wool over your eyes. They say that it was baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach but conveniently leave out the bit about gluten that was sold. (source http://www.bhol.co.il/9196/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.html ) In short, this is a chumra that makes people feel frum but has no basis in halacha and is in fact not really possible to keep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 04:13:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:13:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Message-ID: R' Elazar Teitz wrote: "I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.." On the other hand there is a famous story (printed in the Brisker Haggada and in HaRav MiBrisk) about the Brisker Rav visiting R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach in Vilna in 1941. The Brisker Rav thought that the sugar in Vilna had Kitniyos mixed in and therefore did not use it on Pesach. However, when the Brisker Rav visited R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach, R' Chaim Ozer served him tea with sugar which the Brisker Rav accepted and drank. Afterwards, someone (his son?) asked him why did he drink the tea with the sugar if there was a chashash of kitniyos in the sugar? He answered that not eating kitniyos is a minhag but being mevaze a talmid chacham is an issur d'oraysa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 08:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:52:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573203A1.3050503@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz > that was sold to a goy in Israel//because none of the hechsherim > (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) > hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when > things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the > manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one > is checking that it is true. Since it's only a chumra, why not just trust the manufacturer? Most manufacturers are honest, and if you happen to come across one who isn't you haven't really lost anything. In any case, while there are of course those who look for the "baked after Pesach" label for kashrus reasons, I assume that *most* people who look for this label do so as a guarantee of freshness. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 12:20:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 22:20:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:35:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:35:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f382b3d9eba7690e3482efc18d4e958@aishdas.org> On 2016-05-10 5:31 pm, H Lampel wrote: > Any luck with this? > > Zvi > On 5/2/2016 5:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. > > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. > > Zvi Lampel > (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) The truth is, this machloqes is something I was repeating since R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l was alive. (I mention it in Avodah vol. 1.) And RAK's presentation on logic that made it to print (years before my NCSY days) does not mention the Ramchal's side. Well, it does mention Derekh Hashem 1:1:5 but in the context of one of the paradoxes he's trying to resolve, not about allowing for paradoxes. So I'm trying to dig up an old memory of his stated source. I was thinking of a few places in sefer haHigayon and Derekh Tevunos, which I am still looking for. The Ramchal describes higayon and tevunah as tools Hashem created for a sekhel to use. I thought it was the haqdamah, but since not... The Maharal's model of machloqesin (on Avos 5:17) allows for paradoxes to result when we try to map the supernal Emes to olam hazeh. This point is not THAT relevant, but it's about machloqesin (perhaps only a subset, see end of Be'er 7 which says not every machloqes is eilu va'eilu), and I am writing to the Baal haDynamics. Anyway, it's not really a statement about logic, any more than saying that two shadows of a 3D object can differ and yet both be real shadows. (BTW, the copy of Dynamics in the beis medrash at Yeshiva of Greater Washington is well-worn and due for replacement or rebinding. I was just in the neighborhood for Grandparents' Day at my grandchildren's school.) I did post on-list (to appear in the next digest) that the nearest _pesach _30 gets to denying logic is that "zeh le'umas zeh" denies the law of contradiction. Which doesn't mean Hashem is above logic; it could just mean Hashem's logic isn't the classical one. Which I pointed out in a few halachic examples -- safeiq lashon isah hu appears to mean that a doubt is a coexistence of conflicting states, the need for a tenai to be in both positive and negative, etc... _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 Tue May 10 13:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:31:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57324535.7050501@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 03:20 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) They are discussing the buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), obviously, not the bison (Bison bison). Buffalo have been known in Europe and Asia for thousands of years, and have nothing to do with bison. Americans may be in the sloppy habit of calling bison "buffalo", but since neither the Mechaber nor the Rama were American this is irrelevant. Americans also have a fish they call "buffalo", but that's equally irrelevant. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:55:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:55:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Rav Tal on the state of Israel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160510235548.GA7880@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:10:45PM +0300, R Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim: > In these days of the yahrzeit of RAL there are many articles about > him. One article says that RAL objected strongly to the above > statements. He questions whether any rabbi has the "email address" > of hashem and knows what is helping or hindering the coming of Moshiach. His rebbe and FIL held a similar opinion. Which is why RYBS suggested to those talmidim who were going to say the Tefillah leShalom haMedinah that they might be able to get adding "shetehei" without arguments from the congregation May our Father who is in heaven bless Israel that it become the beginning of the flowering of our redemption, rather than asserting as a given that Israel is that beginning. R SY Alkalai and R ZH Kalisher, the first RZ (or religious proto-Zionist) voices, certainly did speak in terms of ge'ulah and qibbutz golios in the eschatological sense. However, R' Yitzcvhaq Reines, Mizrachi's founder, as well as R' Shmuel Mohilever were also non-messianic in their Zionism, and yet their Zionism was religious, not in addition to their religion. We've discussed in the past the fact that not all RZism is Messianic Zionism, and in fact amongst RZ gedolim, this opinion might not even have the majority. Depending, of course, on the fruitless exercise of defining who is a gadol. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:17:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:17:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to India. They did not initiate the discussion - The Be'ar Hagola tracks the source of that halacha to the Agur (Rabbi Yaakov Landau, 15th century) who was quoting Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron of 13th century Trani, Italy. In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water buffalo, an animal that is raised domestically as cattle in parts of Italy. It is from the milk of water buffalo that mozzarella cheese was originally made near Naples, Italy, and in southern Italy it is still used to make "authentic" mozzarella cheese. This would lead one to suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a kosher behamah (domesticated animal) see here for detals: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:38:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:38:21 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. ie from the halachic point of view is it a bigger problem having a memorial day in Nissan; or a simcha day in Iyar. and from a hashkafic view which is more problematic. the latter comes onto violation of 3 Oaths, idea of a 'secular' state in holy land etc . the former only that somehow holocaust is a prelude to a State, and that those who died resisting were somehow more valiant.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <57327651.5030802@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 04:17 PM, Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah wrote: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to > India. Not "likely". There's not even a hava amina otherwise. > In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water > buffalo Not just Italian but in pretty much every language, including English. > This would lead one to > suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, > were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a > kosher behamah (domesticated animal) Again, this is not a suspicion, it's a complete certainty, and I'm astonished that it even occurs to anyone to question it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:22:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 03:22:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0822d59a-9d49-b752-e005-a309ae78f4c0@starways.net> On 5/10/2016 11:38 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction > these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more > objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. Yom HaShoah is almost certainly more problematic. When the government of Israel asked the rabbis to make a Holocaust remembrance day, they were told that Tisha B'Av and Asara B'Tevet (Yom kiddush klal) covered it, and refused to create a separate day. The Knesset created Yom HaShoah themselves. It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious observances is likely to have a problem with it. Personally, I'm one of them, and while I won't walk down the sidewalk whistling on Yom HaShoah, I don't otherwise pay any attention to the day at all. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 23:56:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:56:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, *Bubalus bubalis*, native to > India. ... The question is then the halachic status of the American Bison - does it require kisui hadam and can one breed an american bison with cattle (beefalo) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 22:20:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 01:20:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re:, Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Micha Berger wrote: > Zvi Lampel wrote: > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... >: where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in >: fact it implies the opposite R. Micha responded: > Then why would you think that was the reference? My answer: Because you wrote so in reply to me previously: > Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:33:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Micha Berger" > Subject: Re: IS THE WORLD GOOD? ... >> ZL: can you direct me to where the Ramchal, too, says this?) > > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See > , where I > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and > Pischei Chokhmah 30. And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 03:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> References: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160511100415.GC11561@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:20:03AM -0400, H Lampel wrote: : > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I : > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See : > , where I : > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and : > Pischei Chokhmah 30. : And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without : citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Because there we were discussing something about logic and theology in general -- that it has no law of excluded middle. Or in English, the specific rule of paradoxes does not apply to G-d nor the shorashim of creation. And his version of the thesis of zeh le'umas zeh is in pesach 30. (R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) also uses zeh le'umas zeh and the idea that paradox is only prohibited bepo'al, not bemachashavah, to explain eilu va'eilu.) It is also sufficient for this conversation, as it shows that G-d can make a paradox manifest. However, I am still on the hunt for the source of the specific idea I was repeating from R' Aryeh Kaplan, that logic as a whole is a nivra rather than an aspect of Emes. (Work being what it has been the last week and a half, it's a very part time hunt.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 04:52:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asks: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) Google is wonderful. I entered "yoreh deah 28:4", and the third hit brought me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info about who they are) which says: > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) rules that one does not > perform kisuy hadam for a buffalo; this determines it to be a > beheimah. (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been meant. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 08:00:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:00:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160511150044.GE7880@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:52:18AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info : about who they are) which says: : : > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) ... : > (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, : > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years : > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... : Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been : meant. I think that is a list of other species for which the same logic would apply, and not other possible translations of buffalo. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 12:50:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:50:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 14:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5733A635.7040108@sero.name> On 05/11/2016 03:50 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile > "On the day that you are redeemed from the exile". Since lechol hade'os that has not yet happened (for instance, nobody has changed the davening to drop all the requests for the redemption, since it's already happened), it follows that hallel should *not* be said. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 23:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:52:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: A while back I did a shiur which touched on the efficacy of "Keil Maaleh's". I found one source which said to give tzedakah before making a keil maaleh rather than pledging to do so. This sounded extremely rational; deliver rather than promise. Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? 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 Thu May 12 00:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:44:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smartphone on shabbat Message-ID: *Zomet At The Crossroads* *> "Telegramma" - Speaking on a Smartphone on Shabbat */ The Zomet Institute At Zomet Institute we receive many requests on a wide range of subjects. One subject that keeps coming back is: When will you design a cellphone that can be used on Shabbat? This question comes from health and security personnel, who use a special telephone as part of their regular Shabbat routine, and who are looking for a way to use the new devices while keeping desecration of Shabbat to a minimum. We are happy to announce that in the last few weeks Zomet has finished the development of a smartphone "App" that uses a speaking device for Shabbat and where the keys are operated using the principle of "*gramma*" ? indirect action. Touching the screen merely changes the flow of an existing current, and therefore the smartphone can be used when there is a need for it. The " *Telegramma*" App is suitable for use only in cases of dire need, such as for matters related to health, security, or similar situations. The App is suitable for smartphones which operate on Android version 4 or higher, and it operates in conjunction with the Telegramma speaking device. For more details, contact us at www.zomet.org5-6]ssxhjxhhxnngntn/eng. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:31:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:31:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > observances is likely to have a problem with it. She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing shows that in the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:42:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:42:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic Message-ID: I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with the present discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: <<< Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? >>> Here's my guess: What will motivate one to donate beforehand? Emotions run high when the rav gives his Yizkor drasha (or at least, the emotions *ought* to run high). It's hard to get into that frame of mind before the event. This is not like other things where we are sure to prepare in advance, like preparing our matzos or our sukkah. If someone shows up at the Seder without matzos, the ramifications will insure that he will certainly remember next year. But if he arrives at Yizkor (or whenever) and forgot to donate beforehand, he'll simply promise to give after Yom Tov, and this b'dieved eventually became the standard. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57346F3E.5080102@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 06:42 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b > which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects > there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change > this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum > of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to > do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd > spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with > the present discussion That is what logicians say. See the Lewis quote in my .sig. But how do you know that it's true? Chassidus says that G-d *can* make A (which is greater than B, which is greater than C) less than C, if He wants to, because He created logic in the first place, and is not bound by it. Mekom ha'aron is the most famous example. Lewis would undoubtedly say that Chazal's description can't be true, because an object that takes up space can't simultaneously *not* take up any space. An object that has width *must* add to the width of the room in which it lies. But Chazal tell us it didn't. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 17:33:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:33:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." It has been noted that if the problem occurs because the dough is not or cannot be thoroughly kneaded, then flour would be on the inside as well. Reading the words of the ShA HaR leaves no room for any doubt - he was definitely not concerned about flour INSIDE the Matza, ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza. This is what he writes, "In truth there is no Halachic problem with Gebrochts, nevertheless those who are strict deserve a blessing. This stringency is not without reason and one who observes it is not acting in a bizarre manner but is in fact concerned to avoid a Torah prohibition [brings a number of authorities] since the flour may not have been thoroughly baked" [because flour that is baked is denatured and cannot ever become Chamets] "As can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded. Even though the flour INSIDE the Matza is a much more serious problem because it has been protected from the heat of the oven, AND IN OUR CASE THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION ...... " So - back to the Q - is this factually correct? It is clear that the ShAHa is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? and that if so, it is not baked and thereby denatured? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:35:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512153522.GD9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:42:50AM +0000, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic... Because we use logic to understand things. The chisaron is in "understand" not the possibility being discussed. Lemashal, Quantum Logic is very different than the logic we use to think with, and yet, it's still a logic with its own rules. Can you understand how electron X is spin-up or spin-down, and X is spin-left could be true, while the statement electron X is either spin-up and spin-left, or X is spin-down and spin-left might not? And yet, the difference is experimentally provable. Saying that Hashem can violate logic inherently means that some of His Actions are among the non-understandable things about Him. ... : An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic... Nu, so you agree with the Rambam. That "a round triangle" is a nonsense phrase, not describing something that can or cannot be done. Modern studies into logic, which has reveals that there is no one true logical system, have made me more skeptical. OTOH, if Hashem can defy logic, how would we ever be able to use logic to argue the point? Any proof of the position I attributed to the Ramchal and Zev attributes to Chassidus would require ruling out an adherance to logic rather than pro-atively arguing for its defiance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:22:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512152203.GC9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 06:31:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Under the current rules, Yom : Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time.... : While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted : from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which : is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the : Knesset or from the rabanim? The CR's office, in order to reduce chillul Shabbos. IIRC, for a while after the rule change, the RCA advised observing on 5 Iyyar in chu"l anyway, as American O observances wouldn't pose that kind of chilul Shabbos risk. They since changed policy. I suggested that someone may make peace with the fact by noting that having a country where the legal holidays are moved around in order to minimize chillul Shabbos is much of what one is saying Hallel for. But as one blogger put it... When you sit down to learn daf beis, you make a birkhas haTorah but not a siyum. There is what to celebrate in the existence of such a country, but the fact that they need to worry about chilul Shabbos by the masses shows Yom haAtzma'ut is a "birhas haTorah", not a siyum. Or as Rav Dovid Lifshitz put it... There is much to celebrate about YhA. But beyond atzma'ut, the nation needs to find the etzem. The job is only half-done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:08:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:08:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99d163da-fad0-a04f-8f8f-a9be47a769e7@starways.net> On 5/12/2016 1:31 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > > > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > > observances is likely to have a problem with it. > > She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know > how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, > Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a > quick glance at Wikipedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing > shows that in > the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) > > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has > resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) > on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the > change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? I don't know. I suspect the rabbanut, because they were the ones who established the holiday in the first place, but I don't know for certain. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:06:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:06:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah >> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile << -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: <19882.2235ddad.44661f9f@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) in Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 53 >> i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. << >>>> What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. But I will take the occasion to draw your attention to what I have written in the past about Yom Hashoah. This is from Cross-Currents, 2005. (I don't recommend wading through all the comments there though.) http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/05/06/yom-hashoah/ And in 2006, in the comments section to a post by Shira Schmidt [http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/05/04/the-controversy-over-holocaust-falle n-soldiers-terror-victims-memorials/], I wrote this about Yom Atzmaut: --quoting myself-- My mother has cousins ? an elderly couple, not religious ? who lost their only son in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Every year on Yom Hazikaron they cry anew, but they find the abrupt transition to Yom Atzmaut too jarring and cannot find it in themselves to celebrate. The Israeli government tried to set up a neat historical lesson that would take a few weeks each year and go in an orderly progression: 1. Galus Jews go like sheep to the slaughter ? Yom Hashoah 2. In Israel a new Jew is created, the proud Israeli soldier, who is brave and strong. He doesn?t die a helpless victim, he dies a hero, defending his homeland ? Yom Hazikaron 3. All the evil and sorrow of our past is now redeemed with the glorious new day, a proud and strong new young country, the State of Israel ? Yom haAtzmaut. Of course this simple story line has become darkened and more complex with the passage of time. Israel is no longer strong and new and young but weary and battle-scarred. Nowadays Yom Hashoah is commemorated with far more respect for the survivors than was the case in the early days, far more sorrow and far less arrogance and false pride. The Israeli Army is still looked at with pride but more young Israelis try to get out of serving ? a favorite ploy is to feign mental illness. The brave soldiers so lionized in the past are instead looked at today simply as sons and brothers. There is less glory and pride and more sorrow and grief, for all the young lives lost. Nevertheless, of all the institutions of the modern Israeli state, the army is the one most deserving of our respect and gratitude ? in my opinion. Finally, Yom Atzmaut is not looked at, either, the way it was in the past. If you read Yoram Hazony?s book *The Jewish State* ? or look at the soul-searching in the Mizrachi camp after the Gaza withdrawal ? you see that on both ends of the political spectrum, a weariness and wariness have set in, as the State has not lived up to expectations. The Left is in a post-Zionist phase where patriotism and flag-waving are passe and the alleged mistreatment of the Arabs overshadows all else. The Right has seen its messianic expectations dashed and realizes that the State is not yet the Redemption. My mother?s cousins who can?t find it in their hearts to celebrate Yom Atzmaut are not the only ones. Israel needs to rewrite its storyline. -- end of quote -- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 14:57:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:57:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:06pm RnTK wrote: : From: Eli Turkel via Avodah :> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. :> In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the :> Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi :> explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are :> redeemed at the end of the exile : Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. Nor on Chanukah? Besides, what R' Yochananan mishum R' Shim'on ben Yehotzadaq actually says there on that pasuq is that "laylah she'ein mequdash lachag, ein ta'un hallel". Which would also exclude Chanukah. >From context, I would say the gemara is asking why the existence of a holiday qorban in particular is not sufficient to justify Hallel on Pesach Sheini. So RY says, because the night is not muqdash to the qorban hachag. As for Rashi, he is commenting on the quoted pasuq. "The song will be for you -- on the day that you will be redeemed from the galus." "Like in the night which will be santified chag -- like the way you are acustomed to sing on the night which is sanctified chag. And you do not have a nightof chag to demand shirah except the nights of Pesachim, on their eating." Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 12:48:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:48:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512194844.GE9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:31AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The ShA HaRav writes : "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their : surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly : kneaded ...." Mimah-nafshakh the AR is speaing about it being a big enough risk to justify a minhag lehachmir, but not to the level of an issur. The AR writes "Be'emes, ki gam she'eino isur gamur bubarur midina, m"m hamachmir tavo alav berakhah." If it was normal for flour to be present on matzos, it would be a risk one would not be allowed to take. And if it was easy to see, no risk would be legitimate -- efshar levareir! We need to understand his empirical claims accordingly. Not a statement about something blatant that someone would notice without even a formal survey. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 19:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57351578.1080609@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 05:57 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which > Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel > for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before > establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. I'm pretty sure this does exclude any other night-time hallel. That, after all, is the gemara's point in quoting the pasuk in the first place -- to show that there is only one night on which hallel is said, and therefore it is not said on Pesach Sheni. I also don't see the implication that the future holiday's hallel will be said at night. All the pasuk seems to be saying is that there will be a new yomtov on which you will say hallel, as you do on the night that is sanctified for a chag. Yeshayahu is merely citing an example of an occasion when hallel is said, and could easily have cited a different one instead, but he would have had to be more specific, since there are many days on which hallel is said, and many on which it is not. By citing Pesach night as his example, he can get away with saying, essentially, "like on hallel night", which is not ambiguous because there is only one. From this the gemara learns that there is no hallel on Pesach Sheni. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:25:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:25:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is worse Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/search/?s=yom+haatzmaut&sort=1 1. the issue of date changing of YH is dealt with in rabbi grunstein's lecture 2. the issue of saying hallel at all , that some provocatively dismiss outright, is dealt with by rabbi zylberman, appropriately in his talk at the Aguda of Passaic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 23:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 06:20:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt Message-ID: While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day from the end of the British mandate to avoid chillul shabbat so yom haazmaut was always arranged to avoid chillul shabbat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 07:24:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May I presently buy Israeli carrots after the recent Shmita year? Message-ID: <1463149425226.74416@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. Israeli carrots currently being sold in the U.S. (May 2016) at this point can be assumed to no longer be peiros shevi'is and may be purchased lichatchila. In fact, purchasing Israeli products is commendable as it benefits the Israeli economy. However, if the carrots do not have a reliable kosher certification, one must separate the relevant tithes (Terumos and Ma'aseros). This year is the first year of the shemita cycle. This means that ma'aser sheini must be separated. The ma'aser sheini portion can be redeemed by transferring its kedusha (elevated status) to a coin. Even a nickel may be used, provided the ma'aser sheini portion (approximately 9% of the package of carrots) is worth more than a peruta, approximately 3 or 4 cents. For the procedure to separate Terumah and Maaser, see https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/separating-terumah-and-maaser/. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 08:52:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:52:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) 2 questions. 1. What is the heter to free the kids? (it's a torah prohibition to free them) 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha and kids thru her (eved ivri) He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:07:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:07:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] on a role for a 'secular' Israel Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/856920/rabbi-moshe-taragin/secular-zionism-for-religious-jews/#.VzVBhX-h6_c.mailto Very good explanation to MTA boys on how to look at the zionist enterprise and how to view it in the scope haskala, brit sinai vs moriah , kiddush hashem etc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:44:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:44:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: >>>What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. ----some people need to ask themselves why asking a halachic question provokes them. maybe the 'slyness' was pointing out that an issur can only be perceived as assur by those who believe said action is assur , not by those who feel act in question is muttar/mitzvah. clearly i couldn't ask why people who commemorate those two days don't realize that it's actually assur.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:18:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:18:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> Message-ID: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> On 05/13/2016 11:52 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer > who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce > children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular > Jews) > > 2 questions. > > 1. What is the heter to free the kids? > (it's a torah prohibition to free them) It's also prohibited to have relations with a shifcha, but Chazal permitted a mamzer to do so for this purpose. > 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he > did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them > (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? > parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos > 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha > and kids thru her (eved ivri) > He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship > with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) Why do you say that? On the contrary, "veyatz'ah ishto imo" means his wife goes in with him, i.e. lives with him at his owner's expense. And *only* a married eved ivri is allowed a shifcha. The simple and expected case is that he loves and gets along with *both* of his wives, and wants to stay with both. > The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Again, because she is his wife and they are his children. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:24:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:39 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted > from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which > is not the actual anniversary. > Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day... RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out on. That the Rabbanut moved that day forward or backward to avoid Chilul Shabbos was not significant. The day that Israel was declared a state is the day to say Hallel (and not to say Tachnun). One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:44:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:44:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160513184458.GC10043@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 06:24:08PM +0000, Harry Maryles wrote: : RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out : on... Although RAS was niftar before the telecom explosion that caused much of the RCA to shift position. As RGS recently wrote about R/Dr Aaron Levine of Flatbush : In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:54:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:54:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> Message-ID: <063701d1ad48$d0e0f7b0$72a2e710$@com> RZS writes ...How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? You are claiming a tremendous chidush l'halacha - that these are actually his kids. Do you have anyone who says this? It w appear not, bc they are not mityaches acharav (as a proof - we see that they are avodim, and not mamzers) mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 04:46:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 07:46:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> The justification for the shiur of a geris for kesmamim on clothing is that any spot that is a kegeris or less in area could be from a crushed parasite. So the kesem proves nothing. Also (Niddah 58b) points out that they couldn't make a gezeirah that would mean she would never be tahor leba'alah. I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? For comparison: Tosafos (58b, "ukidvarav") say that if she were infested with many ma'akhalos, one could be toleh even a larger kesem on that. We do not hold like Tosafos. The AhS (YD 190:18) pins that on these bugs being loners. They don't scamper in pairs. Multiple crushed lice would make multiple kesamim. Alternatively (se'if 27, in the name of the Rosh se'if 6) lo pelug chakhamim. Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. (A ma'akholes is apparently too common or too unnoticable to warrant needing to know if there was one around.) And the AhS (se'if 31) says that because pishpeshin can't be found where he lives, this din doesn't apply. This is based on Rashi ("R"N") saying "there are places where pishpeshin are found, and in those places..." Would people living in modern settings have to say the same about the ma'akholes? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:19:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:19:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which > case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, > pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've > unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than > lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the > ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. The bedbugs that I had seen in both the US and Israel are significantly larger than lice, and when filled with blood, hold a lot more. Furthermore, bed bugs have a very distinct odor (at least when there is a significant infestation) that many people can smell. -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:32:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 08:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57386C6F.6070906@sero.name> > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a > place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, > that this is a likely alternative explanation. Bedbugs are back, and can strike anywhere, and the first indication of their presence, long before one actually sees them, is the kesamim they leave behind. I wonder if "maacholes" actually means bedbug, but even if it doesn't the same principle applies. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 07:12:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:12:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live > in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice > and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. > > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah > didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and > therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came > from? I've always figured on the second of these two. My reasoning is based on the halachos of where the kesem was found. If we are going to make logical estimates "about where the kesem came from", then we shouldn't care about whether or not the cloth can be mekabel tumah. Who cares about the size of the cloth, or the color of the cloth, or the material of the cloth? But the system was set up such that if the cloth is not m'kabel tumah, then the kesem can't be tamay either. And so too for the size of the kesem. I had a lot of trouble understanding - and even accepting - the above, but when I realized that without hargasha everything becomes d'rabanan, it began to make sense. (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche to set it up however they wanted.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:25:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:25:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mazer Message-ID: <> There is a major discussion if one has a child who is a mamzer whether he has fulfilled the mtzvah of pru u-revu or not. Similarly is there a mitzva for a mamazer to marry a mamzerut to have children (see minchat chinuch, har tzvi, kovetz shiurim) BTW I saw an opinion that if a mamzer marries a shifcha and has a child he doesn't fulfil; pru u-revi but he does fulfill le-shevet yezarah see a discussion by RAL on pru urevu vs leshevet yetzirah (Hebrew) http://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D6%B6%D7%91%D6%B6%D7%AA-%D7%90 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:43:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Mordechai Cohen asked: <<< The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) >>> My understanding is that if a Jew has relations with a non-Jewess and the resulting children convert to Judaism, he DOES fulfill p'ru uv'vu through them. (Maybe that's only in the case of a non-Jewush man who converts together with his children? I'm not sure.) <<< He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha ... The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? >>> No, it's not the *posuk* who refers to the shifcha and children that way. The posuk is merely quoting the man. It is the man who referred to them that way, and given his love for them, I'd expect nothing less. One might argue that he wrong for feeling that love and/or for expressing it, but that's irrelevant: He does feel that way, and he did verbalize it, and the Torah is merely quoting him. My second answer is more technical. Hebrew has no word for wife. His words could just as easily be translated as "I love my woman", which I presume you'll concede to be accurate. As far as "my children", well, he just wasn't being very clear. He didn't mean "my halachic children", but merely "my genetic children". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:43:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 01:43:44 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? Message-ID: It seems R Micha has erred by not recognising that the risk is NOT about whether there is flour, of course there is flour - as the SAHaR says 'behold we see with our own eyes' that there is flour on the Matza the risk is whether the flour that is certainly there on many Matzos - has been toasted adequately to be denatured and prevented from becoming Chamets when exposed to water. Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57389966.5020706@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 10:12 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts > in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha > d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it > is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only > works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche > to set it up however they wanted.) This is not true. Mid'oraisa tzuras hapesach works in a reshus horabim de'oraisa. That one can't fix a r"hr simply by putting up four poles and four strings is mid'rabanan. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 11:45:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> From: M Cohen via Avodah R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) Mordechai cohen >>>>> There is no "shifcha" today. But a mamzer can marry a non-Jewish woman and have children with her, and later those children can convert to Judaism. I'm not saying he is halachically allowed to marry a non-Jewish woman but the fact is, if he does so, his children will not be mamzerim. Similarly a kohen who is a challal can avoid having children who are challalim by having children with a non-Jewish woman, and later they can convert and be kosher Jews. True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be cha llalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid the consequences of sin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 16:59:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:59:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 02:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such > eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was > tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid > the consequences of sin. That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no reason not to encourage him to do it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 01:32:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:32:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: On 5/16/2016 2:59 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one > we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually > forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no > reason not to encourage him to do it. Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 02:58:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 05:58:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516095809.GA31988@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:43:44AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the : facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour : is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. ... only because you're asking about the problem being prevalent enough for gebrochts to be assur. Whereas I am arguing that by context, we know the SAhR's "harbei" means prevalent enough to be worth a chumerah. And that kind of frequency would require a broad survey. Not sure if that qualifies as efshar levareir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 04:57:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:57:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten bam) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 06:18:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> R' Micha - thanks for the m"makom - still have to look it up. RMB also asked - Are you asking why a man might want to have children other than his chiyuv to do so? Ans. I am aware that a man can (and might want to) raise children not his own. Ie adoption. My question was that R Tarfon seems to imply that his eitza is more than just adopting and raising children not his own. I didn't (and still don't) understand why his eitza is better - they are not mityaches to him in any way. RZS's answer is not true. BTW, thanks to Reb Google, see article on this subject (though it does not extensively deal w/ my questions) [Posted as part of the thread or -micha] Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 10:41:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't > think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah Kamoha) seems to disagree. On 05/16/2016 07:57 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: >> "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not >> yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" > The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children > are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The > Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with > the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks > nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten > bam) The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) But the proof that your children by a nochris are nochrim like her is from the pasuk that says they are not your children. That pasuk doesn't *say* that they're nochrim, but the gemara deduces that since they have no Jewish parent what else could they be? The pasuk itself is not concerned with their status, since the avera it says they'll do is avoda zara, which is forbidden also to nochrim, and thus if they were your children this would be a matter of concern to you. (Your obligation of chinuch would surely apply to your non-Jewish children, if it were possible for you to have any; you wouldn't have to teach them not to eat treif or break shabbos, but surely you would have to teach them not to serve avoda zara, and thus it should upset you that their mother will teach them to serve it.) By saying that this is not something you should be upset about, the pasuk is telling you that they are not your children, and thus their idolatry and subsequent damnation is none of your business. On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > RZS answer is not true. And your proof is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 22:14:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: On Monday, May 16, 2016, Zev Sero wrote: > On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't >> think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. > Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar > Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. > The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt > http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah > Kamoha) seems to disagree. You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being your children. I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they are your children or not. Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 13:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <5bc7f3.13131e6f.446b89a5@aol.com> > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone.[--old TK] AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben ben1456 at zahav.net.il >>>>> But I think the son of a challal is a challal, and his son, and his son, forever. And the daughter of a challal cannot marry a kohen. So his granddaughter (son of his son), his great-granddaughter and so on, can never marry kohanim -- at least until so many generations have passed that no one remembers the family are challalim. Whereas if he has a son with a non-Jewish woman that son is not a challal. He's also not a Jew, but he can become one. And the daughter of a ger can marry a kohen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:13:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 23:13:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben On 5/15/2016 8:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:34:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:34:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A20C2.2050400@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 03:14 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. > The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with > their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, > and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's > property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to > exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, > but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that > of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) > > You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being > your children. Neither the pasuk nor the gemara says anything about their yichus. All it discusses is their status. The Pasuk says they belong to their mother's owner, therefore the gemara says they are avadim. There's no chain of logic involved here; the gemara is merely restating the pasuk. That is very unlike the gemara's next case, where the pasuk doesn't directly address the children in question at all, and its indirect statement is that they are not yours, from which the gemara infers that they must be nochrim. > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. > Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as > a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. 1) Who says a Jew can't be related to a non-Jew? The gemara's order of logic is *not* "they're nochrim, therefore they're not your children", but rather "they're not your children, therefore they're nochrim". 2) Avadim *are* Jews, so who says they can't be related to Jews? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:31:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 05:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from > other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:57:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516215742.GC21112@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:27:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: : shabasos limnucha : moadim l'simcha : chagim uzmanim l'sason : : I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are... : My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, : because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are : Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they : the same in regards to Sason? Apparently they are different aspects of the same thing. As in, "Chag haMatzos haZeh, zeman Cheiruseinu." There is a duality between zeman va'eis, as in a beris being be'ito uvizmano. Quoting what I wrote in v15n74: > ... RAKotler has a beautiful vort on the > difference. Beqitzur to the point of omitting the beauty: eis = a > point in the time sequence of a process. (RSRH would probably relate > "eis" to "ad".) Be'ito, when the baby is ready. Zeman = a point in > time according to a scedule. In this case, the morning of day 8 (or > day 9 when a safeiq Shabbos situation arises). I wrote a vort for MmD > on eis, zeman, qeitz, yamim, shanim, and Jewish time in general at > . In that vertl, I suegges that a qeitz is where the zeman and eis for the end coincide. Thus, "miqeitz shenasayim yamim" is when the predetermined number of years in jail were up AND when Yoseif was developmentally ready. Shanim and yamim. Circular time and linear time. A chag is a point in circular time, /ch-v-g/ related to /`-v-g/ to draw a circle. It's a sacred eis. But every chag coincides with a sacred zeman. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 23rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination Fax: (270) 514-1507 stifle others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 15:02:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:02:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516220214.GD21112@aishdas.org> I feil to see the problem. Nosein ta'am and bitul beshishim go hand-in-hand. RMF yses this argument in a letter to R' Pinechas Teitz to explain why whiskey can be made in sherry casks; since stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6, there is no problem of ta'am. You would obviously tased a mixture of 6 parts water to one part wine. Since qitniyos are batel berov, why would there be reason to say that a pot can becomes "peasdik"? (To quote a subject line from a month ago.) Are we afraid that the volume of the walls of the pot exceed the volume the pot holds? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 22:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:35:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> Message-ID: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No issur involved. 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? On 5/16/2016 11:31 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters > are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim > like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:34:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be :> declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? : Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one : can't accept it in many other cases A little more complicated, since discussing chumeros in mamzeirus raises an issue distinct to mamzeirus. "Kivan denitme'ah, nitme'ah" is a gezeiras hakasuv which makdes resolving mamzeirus in many cases beyond chumerah -- altogether needless. Being born of a father other than the husband does not make these people mamzeirim altogether. More than that, the gemara (Qiddushin 71a) continues telling you one SHOULD NOT reveal the families in which mamzeirus is nitme'ah. It is therefore consistent to refuse DNA testing for mamzeirus (in these cases), while believing that DNA testing is in principle halachically valid evidence. Part of a general reluctance to gather eviudence. However, I would think we could use DNA testing to help a shetuqi or asufi, to free him for the shadow of mamzeirus or at least allow him to marry vadai mamzeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 08:04:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:04:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517150411.GD8481@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 05:54:21PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote: : Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. : While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of : yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? Exactly. Better to use a DNA test to make a shetuqi or asufi either kosher yichus or a vadai mamzer than leaving him a shetuqi or asifu. So I assume in such cases, we should use the DNA test; either result is better than none. (And it's not a kivan shenitme'ah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 09:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 5/17/2016 8:35 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No > issur involved. But then their sons are challalim. > 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to > marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a > convert or divorcee)? Zona, with a zayin. I know one couple who, when they went to get married, were told by their rabbi that she was a virgin. That he didn't want to hear about what she'd done or not done. Granted, she wasn't marrying a kohen, but I guess there's a chazaka. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 12:54:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:54:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:06:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Areivim wrote: : Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people whose values contradict : the Torah is not a hillul hashem.... : As RZS has often said here, kiddush hashem does not mean "good PR" And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul hasheim because CH *does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive Peloni. Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. The gemara literally defines qiddush hasheim has good PR. To tweak that first quoted sentence: Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people because they hold values that contradict the Torah is not a chillul hasheim. That isn't you pushing them away from avodas Hashem, it's them a natural downward spiral. However, lowering that estaeem among people whose values contradict the Torah's for other reasons is NOT "sheyehei sheim shamayim mis'aheiv al yadekha." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:30:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > Peloni. Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a *kiddush* haShem. > Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct value system. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:24:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:24:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> Message-ID: <573B7DFB.1050504@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > Btw, thanks to reb google, see article on this subject (though it does not > extensively deal w my questions) > > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf Very thorough, but I see one enormous flaw -- the author takes it for granted that slavery is barred by dina demalchusa. This may be true in some countries, e.g. the UK, where the common law has held for centuries that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in, and thus that any slave who sets foot in England automatically becomes free. But it remains to be established that this is the case in all countries, particularly in the USA, where the 13th amendment only bans *involuntary* servitude. I am unaware of any law in the USA that would prevent a person from voluntarily becoming the property of another, and after _Lawrence_ and _Obergefell_ such laws, if they exist, may even be unconstitutional! If so, then the shifcha method could work here. There may well also be other countries where this is the case. And in Israel it might be possible to introduce legislation in the Knesset to explicitly legalise voluntary avdus, with appropriate safeguards to prevent it being abused. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:51:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 00:51:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't > include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we > make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the severity of the laws of taharot. He says that even though that reason no longer applies in our current circumstances, we can't nullify the gezerah of ketamim altogether. But we certainly don't need to extend it beyond the specifications of the original gezerah. So a ketem smaller than a k'gris does not make a woman niddah, even nowadays when such a stain cannot plausibly be attributed to a ma'akolet. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:47:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. : : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. Where does it say that? And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah by how clean some TC's frock is? : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation is not limited to those peers. : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive : >Peloni. : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a : *kiddush* haShem. ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off to Tzeduqim? Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. : : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct : value system. You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such limitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517220836.GA31726@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51:47AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. : Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the : reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the : severity of the laws of taharot... So the CS holds that kegeris is the limit of the gezeirah, and not just part of the general "you can be toleh kesamim on anything plausible". Pishpishin and the shiur of a keturmos (the size of a bean called a "lupine"?) *is* considered part of that general rule. To the extent that the Rambam doesn't give it special mention. Which brings me to the next question... How does the CS know that kegeris and blaming a ma'akholes is different in kind than the rest of the sugya? We could deduce from the Rambam, but that just shifts my question up some centuries. For example, the Yereim says that the shiur is based on the lice of your region, and not the same kegeris (about a nickle) of chazal. Of course (given the above), the CS does say the shiur is a geris, not tied to the size of engourged lice. And does that mean that the Yereim (and the mi'ut of contemporary posqim who hold like him) would say there is no shiur today? BTW, the PT, #12 says besheim the Raavad that there is no shiur if the kesem is black, since a ma'akheles stain would always be rad. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 05:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. > : > : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > > Where does it say that? It's completely obvious, and doesn't need saying. It simply can't be otherwise. > And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah > by how clean some TC's frock is? Apparently so. Otherwise what guide do you have? Why do you assume pagans esteem cleanliness, when for every one that does so there's probably another who esteems filth and despises cleanliness? > : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, > > : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > > The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation > is not limited to those peers. But non-peers may well think highly of him for it. Think of the "game" community that has formed online in the last 20 years, and what sort of traits they admire and despise in a person. A reputation that would embarass a t"ch's peers would be lionised in those circles. > : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > : >Peloni. > > : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and > : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a > : *kiddush* haShem. > > ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off > to Tzeduqim? Then it's a good bet that it's a kiddush haShem. > Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my > capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. Actually the gemara's lashon is may *his* Lord forgive him. But it's obviously being said by people who know what Hashem's standards are. > : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. > : > : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct > : value system. > > You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such > limitation. It *has* to have it, because we have voluminous *evidence* of what KH/CH is, and it's emphatically *not* that sheim shomayim should be beloved by those "who call bad good and good bad, who establish darkness as light and light as darkness, bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:57:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> Who is the audience to chilul hasheim in Yesodei haTorah 5:11? "Haberios". Ad sheyimtz'u HAKOL meqlsin oso, ve'ohavim oso, umis'avim lema'asav. Harei zeh qideish as hasheim... "Hakol" is all who? Not all the berios, since that's all he (repeatedly) describes as the observers? -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:35:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:35:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish Message-ID: A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels that there is no health problem can eat the two together -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:32:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:32:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: <> RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea of shifcha today is ridiculous -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:28:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:28:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 05:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:28:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735391/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/eating-fish-and-meat-together/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 04:10:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573C4DA9.9060307@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 05:28 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they >> are your children or not. > > Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> > > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Of course marriage is an occasion when one is *interested* in yichus, just as one is interested in health, character, and all kinds of other things; would you say that "health refers to marrriage, and might have nothing to do with topics like strength, diet, medical treatment, or life expectancy"?! -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 07:27:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:27:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> RBW asked.. L'maaseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a zona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? Ans. Yes, all BT girls are asked 'as discreetly as possible' if they are mutar to a cohen or not when in the shidduch parsha. (bc rov are not eligible) L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must look towards FFB shidduchim This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they bring it up otherwise) Some stats: The average age Americans lose their virginities is 17.1 for both men and women The CDC also reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females aged 20 to 24. That number drops below 5 percent aged 25 to 29 Statistically, if you didn't have sex in your teen years, you're in the minority. The interesting/disturbing problem is that many (rov?) BT cohens are not probably not cohens. (and actually w be mutar to a zona, mutar l'tamai l'masim, etc) If the BT cohens mother grew up post 1960s/70s/80s or so (and became BT post high school), it's probably a chazakah that she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. It's unlikely that the BT boy is willing to ask his mother if she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. (and even if she says she wasn't, is she be believed against the chazaka?) I personally heard from a major chareidi posek that for this reason a cohen s l'chatchila not go out w a BT cohens daughter, if the parents were married before they became frum and she was a teenager post 1960s/70s/80s or so (bc of the possibility that she is actually the daughter of a chalalah who was forbidden to marry her father) As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 09:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:28pm IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they :> are your children or not. : :> Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. : : Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage... I assume you mean: Yichus refers to a persons lineage WRT whom they and their descendents may marry. Do I understand correctly? : It might have nothing to do : with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between : parents and child. Is there a source for making such a chiluq, or are you just posing a hava amina for discusion. I was told lehalkhah ulemasseh that an adoptive child's honoring his parents is a qiyum of kavod harav, not kibud av va'eim. So for KAvA, some kind of genetic parentage is involved. At 12:32pm IDT, RET continued (on a second aspect of the discussion): : RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea : of shifcha today is ridiculous I would like to have the grapevine confirmed on this one. But in any case... When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and shevuyim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:02:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> Message-ID: <573CA023.104@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 10:27 AM, M Cohen wrote: > L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must > look towards FFB shidduchim > > This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. > > At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they > bring it up otherwise) But what about chalalos? An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married. Who keeps track of that, let alone after several generations? > As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens > are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Not just BTs, as I pointed out above. And indeed many poskim do say that this is why our cohanim only duchen on yomtov; since they have no yichus, and can't know whether they're really entitled to duchen, they should avoid doing so except when it would be blatantly obvious, and would thus cause a pegam on their family. (This is a based on a gemara that a safek cohen would collect terumah only once a year, to keep up his name.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573CA023.104@sero.name> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> <573CA023.104@sero.name> Message-ID: <0dcd01d1b128$28a623c0$79f26b40$@com> RZS wrote ..An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married.. Ans. But these FFB girls DO have a chezkas kashrus. My point was that todays female BTs, and male BTs descended from cohanim don't have that chazaka anymore Mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:01:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:01:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:35:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on : yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not : eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels : that there is no health problem can eat the two together In terms of acharonim, it's the Yad Efraim (#116) CS (shu"t #101) prohibiting and the MA (OC 173) permitting. The MA says nishtanah hateva. The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which we don't eat anymore. 2- The Rambam omits it as he does any other piece of medical advice that doesn't work. According to R' Avraham b haRambam, nishtanah hateva means the scientific theory has changed. WHch would make this idea a paralel to the MA's reasoning. The YE lists numerous posqim who prohibit, appealing to authority rather than giving a sevara But I think there is more to the story than included in this report. It's non-trivial to tell people -- especially Ashkenazim -- to follow the Rambam against both the SA (including the Rama) and commonly accepted practice. I am not questioning the conclusion, I just think we are missing critical pieces of the argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573CA7CB.5070500@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 12:51 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and > shevuyim? That's discussed at length in the article that was forwarded. Basically since avdus is a matter of dinei momonos it would seem to depend on dina demalchusa. But my question is on the metzius in the USA; I question the assumption that voluntary slavery is illegal here. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 11:36:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:36:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> References: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> <573BA37C.9070402@sero.name> <20160518174122.GE6953@aishdas.org> <573CAB65.1060509@sero.name> <2e7c1df5b9ef9931f5bc64b483eaeff8@aishdas.org> <573CAD8E.2030905@sero.name> <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160518183641.GA3694@aishdas.org> Two more examples of qiddush hasheim being about behavior in front of anyone. 1- Geneivas aku"m through circumvention is a lack of qiddush hasheim (R' Aqiva, BQ 113a) 2- Orechos Tzadiqim, sha'ar haEmes, calls getting the nations to say "Berikh E-lohehon diYhuda'i!" to be a qidush hasheim. The example is from Shimon ben Shetach requiring his talmidim to return a gem to a Yishmaeli when it was lifnim mishuras hadin. (TY BM 2:5, vilna 8a) (Recall this is pre-Islam, the Yishmaeli was aku"m.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 01:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:26:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or even leaves the family. One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive family and biology contributes nothing. Though not the topic of the shiur if the mother is a shifcha or a nonJew the father (who stays with the family) is entitled to all rights of a father including kibud Av independent of any halachot of yichus. He is not worse than an adoptive parent (my conclusion not discussed in the shiur) The only exception to this rule is sitting shiva. One is required to sit shiva for the biological father and may sit shiva for the adoptive father. When questioned he explained that not sitting shiva for a father even if he did nothing for the family might hint of mamzerut -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 21:32:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Adar Jacob via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:32:58 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 02:59:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 05:59:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160519095946.GD26914@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Adar Jacob wrote: : As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting : it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov : for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. This isn't an issue of rov. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that kivan shenitma, nitma -- a family in which the mamzeirus got forgotten must be left that way. One is *prohibited* against digging up lost claims of mamzeirus. I think of it in similar terms to how an afflicted person isn't a metzorah until the kohein says so. Here too, the biological parentage is the primary factor in determining mamzeirus, but apparently not the only one. We must also be aware of that parentage. And if hot, the person isn't halachically a mamzer and we wrong him by finding out his biological state and making him subject to the strictures. It is only a foundling (asufi) or someone who can't identify who his father is (shetuqi) who are *derabbanan* held under doubt. (De'oraisa, only a definite mamzer is assur.) Not cases of needing to dig up history of people who think they're kosher. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 26th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking Fax: (270) 514-1507 control just a way of abandoning one's self? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:15:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:15:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573DA051.10607@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 01:01 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including > > 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which > we don't eat anymore. Or perhaps we (i.e. middle Europeans) *do* eat this species but the Rambam (in Egypt) didn't and was unaware of it. I know the two Aris have identified it as a species that exists only in the Euphrates, and thus is eaten only in Turkey and Iraq, but that's not information the CS could have had. It could just as easily have been a species that also lives in the Danube, but not in the Nile or the Mediterranean. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:12:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:12:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Death Message-ID: <1463667145403.74543@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Vayikra 21:5 They shall not make a bald spot on their head, nor shall they shaveoff the corners of their beard and they shall not make a wound in their flesh. Heathenism, both ancient and modern, tends to associate religion with death. The kingdom of God begins only where man ends. Death and dying are the main manifestations of divinity. For, in the heathen view, the deity is a god of death, not of life; a god who kills and never revives, who sends death and its harbingers - sickness and poverty - so that men, mindful of his power and their own helplessness, should fear him. For this reason heathen temples stand beside graves, and the foremost place of heathen priests is beside a corpse. There, where the eyes are dimmed and the heart is broken, they find fertile soil for the dissemination of their religion. He who bears on his flesh a mark of death - a symbol of death's power to conquer all - and thus remains ever mindful of death, performs the religious act par excellence, and this especially befits a priest and his office. Not so are the priests in Judaism, because not so is the Jewish concept of God and not so is the Jewish religion. God, Who instructs the Kohein regarding his position in Israel, is a God of life. The most exalted manifestation of God is not in the power of death, which crushes strength and life. Rather, God reveals Himself in the liberating and vitalizing power of life, which elevates man to free will and eternal life. Judaism teaches us not how to die but how to live, so that even in life we may overcome death, an unfree existence, enslavement to physical things, and moral weakness. Judaism teaches us how to live every moment of earthly life as a moment of eternal life in the service of God; how thus to live every moment of a life marked by moral freedom, a life of thought and will, creativity and achievement, and also pleasure. This is the teaching to which God has dedicated His Sanctuary and for whose service He has consecrated the Kohanim, who teach the people the "basis and direction of life" __________________________________________________________________ Based on this may one conclude that the present day obsession with death that one finds in some Islamic circles is a reversion to heathenism? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:54:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:54:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In continuation of the topic of kibud av ve-em from yevamot 22b that there is ni issur to curse a wicked father rambam hilchot mamrim explains that this applies only the punishment the Tur disagrees and says that one must honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva others distinguish and say that one must honor a wicked father only while he is alive see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva R Zilberstein brings the Zecher Shlomo (Lech Lecha) and the Chida (Devash Le-phi 1:39) that therefore Avraham owed no honor to his father Terach once Terach handed him over to Nimrod. R Zilberstein further brought the Maharam Shick that one who is involved (metapel) in a mitzvah is the owner of the mitzvah and whoever works and establishes a mitzvah is the one to make the arrangements. Thus the one who actively rears the child is the "owner" of the child and gets to make the decisions and not the biological parent who is not around. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573DA738.2000201@sero.name> On 05/19/2016 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation > of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or > even leaves the family. > One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's > marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. > R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has > absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the > adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em > applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that > abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive > family and biology contributes nothing. Sorry, this is contrary to halacha. Kibbud av va'em is not connected to hakarat hatov; it's a duty that one owes to ones parents *regardless* of whether they did one good or bad. Even a mamzer owes his parents kibud, although they did him the worst evil. Even Avraham Avinu, whose father handed him over to be burned, owed him kibbud av. An adoptive "parent" is only owed hakarat hatov (and kevod rabbo if he taught him torah) and therefore is only owed it if he actually did good and not bad. An abusive adoptive parent is owed nothing. This is not subject to any machlokes, thus there is no room for different opinions. Someone who says otherwise is simply wrong. I found an answer to my speculation that a Jew's child by a shifcha might be considered his child. It's not so. An eved has no yichus at all, not even to his mother(!) let alone his father. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 06:37:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:37:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to > do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections > between parents and child RZS: > What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? > Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Yichus may of course have different meanings in different contexts. The first mishna in the fourth perek of Kiddushin, Asara Yuchasin, very strongly connects yichus to marriage. The mishna lists ten halachic categories of personal status (my translation of "yichus") , and then immediately details the connection of these statuses to the permissibility of marriage Indeed it is clear that according to this mishna, a *very fundamental implication* of yichus is whom can one marry halachically, Putting this more strongly it seems that the mishna is defining ten halachic "marriageability" categories (yuchasin), making marriageability a *defining characteristic* of yichus. This is most likely what RET had in mind. In the framework of this mishna, RZS' statement "What does yichus have to do with marriage?Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less." is untenable.Yichus defines whom you can marry. When the gemara states "bno min min hashifcha umin hanachrit u eino mityaches acharav" it is saying, as we know, that halachically the child of a male Jew and a female slave or a non-Jewish woman is not his child; there is no genealogical connection ("yichus") between them. This is the sense of yichus that RZS apparently favors, but is a meaning of yichus very different from that in the above cited mishna. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 03:02:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:02:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I am bringing in more detail the story told by R Zilberstein. He gives out notes before the shiur and so this is all in print if anyone is interested A man divorced his wife after a nasty settlement without leaving any mezonot for the wife or their daughter. Later the woman married again and had a new happy family and the new husband raised the daughter from the first marriage supplying all her needs while the biological father had no contact with his daughter A few days before the daughter's marriage the father shows up holding an invitation upset that the adoptive father is listed as the father of the kallah and the biological father isn't mentioned at all. He screamed is the husband of your mother really your father? Though he had no contact with his daughter he described the shame he had with his friends and demanded that they print a new invitation with himself listed as the father of the bride The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father of the bride. Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to have his name listed on the invitation. The daughter returned to her father with the psak of R Zilberstein and the father remarked that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also needs to participate in buying an apartment. R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the biological father is listed. He was not sure whether the language should be "be abuha" or "be nasa" . The first would be a lie since she didn't live with her father but the second language is used only for an orphaned bride. His preferred remedy was to leave that phrase out completely. Again anyone who wants to see the Hebrew original can contact me -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:12:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:12:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573F3781.9080405@sero.name> On 05/20/2016 06:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that > the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. In other words, her obligation of kibud av va'em is to her real father, not to the one who raised her, but this obligation doesn't include putting him on her wedding invitation, for the reason explained later. > Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her > up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the > dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father > of the bride. I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by the father, but not in this case). > Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to > have his name listed on the invitation. [...] the father remarked > that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter > returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz > they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also > needs to participate in buying an apartment. Again, the term "to be considered the father" makes no sense here; can money make someone a father or not a father?! If he's not the father how can any amount suddenly make him one, and why are they haggling over the amount? Rather the issue here was not at all whether he's the father. Of course he is. The issue here was who is the host who is making the wedding and inviting people to it. And that is the person who is paying, not just for the actual affair, but also the expenses that enable the affair to happen, i.e. the apartment, without which there would be no shidduch. It appears from this psak that if he is willing to pay this the bride and her adoptive father may not refuse! And that would be because he is after all the father, and thus has the *right* to host his daughter's wedding, if only he is willing to do so. > R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological > father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the > biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but > when he is alive the biological father is listed. I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! And the fact is that she is forbidden to his relatives, and *permitted* to her adoptive father's relatives. (In fact it used to be common for someone who raised an orphan to arrange a marrriage for him or her with one of his own children. I even know of a case nowadays where this happened.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:18:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:18:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Surely prevention of marriage with (forbidden) relatives is applicable whether the biological father is or is not alive? On 20 May 2016 at 11:02, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in > order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not > alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the > biological father is listed. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 13:00:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:00:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: see http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ and especially http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful for this is also greater. also http://www.lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] The children may be identified when called to the Torah and in formal documents as the son or daughter of those who raised them, and the normal restrictions of *yihud* (which generally allows unsupervised and close contact with only biological parents, siblings and children) is not applicable to adoptive families, whose members interact as a biological family would. This is far more than transporting halakhic forms (like not addressing one?s adoptive parents by their first names) to the adoptive family. It is an expression of a new halakhic reality, so to speak. obviously laws of mourning are different between a biological parent and an adoptive parent Rabbi Soloveitchik insisted that there is a *kiyyum* of the mitzvah of *avelut* even when there is no halakhic obligation to mourn the specific individual. He drew this conclusion from the ruling that ?Where there is a case of a deceased who has left no mourners to be com?forted, ten worthy men should assemble at his placeall seven days of the mourning period and the rest of the people should gather about them [to comfort them]. And if the ten cannot stay on a regular basis, others from the community may replace them.? It was for this reason that the Rav regularly advised children to mourn the adopted parents who had raised them. If there was no * hiyyuv *[obligation]* ha-mitzvah*, there was none-the-less a *kiyyum ha-mitzvah*. BTW a friend of mine told me that there is a psak of R Schacter that if the parent abused the child and it would be a great stress on the child to mourn for the parent then he is exempt from sitting shiva -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 11:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:20:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I found an extended article on how to fix a mazer (tihur mamzerim) from avnei hamakom volume 15 from Rav Oren Zwick As to marrying a shifcha he nrings that minchat yotzchak outlawed it because of dina demalchuta Rab Breish (Chelkat Yaakov) - in a series of letters between them disagrees. In fact it is suggested that in Israel marriage is conducted by the rabbinate and halachically they should be able to allow a shifcha. It is stressed that this is on condition that it be done officially-legally by the Israeli rabbinate. He also discusses other options and ends with a reference to Yevamot 68b and bet shmuel 2:18 in the name os sefer charedim that a mamzer can't live more than 12 months > I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the > original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is > inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by > the father, but not in this case). I am confused. I emphatically stated that anyone who wants to see the original to contact me and I would send it. Why suspect what is written when one can check it yourself The words that R Zilberstein uses are harei she - "avi hakallah" bnidan didan hu ha-abba ha-choreg Obviously the adoptive father is not the "real" father is considered like the real father and is the one who should be listed as the father in the invitation > I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the > father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! Be-kewtuba raui lichtov et shemo shel ha-av ha-amiti hedei she-lo tezei taut u-machshla be-nisue krovim. Umnam be-yetoma kotvim et shemo shel mi she-gidel otah aval ke=she-ha-abba chai yesh lichtov et shemo I again strongly suggest that anyone who wants to challenge my interepation of the psak look at the original and not guess based on his knowledge what 2 major poskim state. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 21:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] ============================================== My general take on this topic is that many halakhists bent over backwards to find solutions to the adoption problems mentioned (e.g. yichud). Perhaps it was due to the need for orphans to find homes or the human drive for childless couples to have families(especially when dealing with non-Jewish adoptions)? I never found much written about the meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times influenced the decisions. 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 Sun May 22 16:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 19:12:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah Message-ID: Pesachim 35a tells us that ?things which can come to chimutz, a person can fulfill his chiyuv of matza with them; this excludes those which come not to chimutz, but to sirchon.? This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: > Lo sochal alav chametz > Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos > Do not eat chametz with it > For seven days you will eat matzos Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. After all, if the pasuk had said, "Do not eat carrots; you must eat beef," would that lead us to conclude that carrots and beef have similar definitions? However, the truth is that the phrases don't *need* to save any logical connection. If Torah Sheb'al Peh says that this is how Torah Sheb'ksav chose to connect the definitions of chametz and matzah, it's just one of many similar cases. (I don't know whether this particular limud is called a "hekesh" or something else, but I hope my point is clear.) So I am not saying that the gemara was wrong for deriving these definitions from that pasuk. What I *AM* asking is why the gemara points to that pasuk, when there is a different pasuk it could have used instead. In my view, there is another pasuk that makes the very same point, but much more clearly, in a very pshat way. Why should we resort to a lomdishe juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: > Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos > Ki lo chametz > Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah > They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza > Because it did not become chametz > Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. How much clearer can it be, presuming that the Author wants a historical narrative, and not a legal text? If the word "ki - because" was missing, my argument would be much weaker, but it is *not* missing, and it is the cornerstone of my argument: It became matza *because* it did not become chametz. Chametz and matza are one and the same, differing only in that one is baked prior to chimutz (which prevents chimutz from happening), and the other does undergo chimutz. If dough does reach chimutz, getting baked later is irrelevant. Baking is relevant only to preventing chimutz, which is what creates matza: "They baked it into matza, because it did not become chametz." But I can't find anyone who explicitly connects Shemos 12:39 to the definitions of chametz and matza. Even if there is some weakness to this pasuk, and Devarim 16:3 is truly stronger, I would think that this would be mentioned in the gemara. Pesachim 35a should have said something like, "And R' Ploni retorted, Why do you cite Devarim, when we already have Shemos? But R' Almoni answers that Shemos is actually weaker because of..." Does anyone know of anything like this? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 00:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend 11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in techiyat hamettim. What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:40:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby Message-ID: The Gemara in Kiddushin (73b) has the following case. 4 women give birth to baby boys in the same house and one is the wife of a Cohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin, and one the wife of a mamzer. The Gemara states that the midwife is believed to say which is the son of the Cohen, which is the son of the Levi, etc. The Ran quoted by the Beis Yosef (Even Haezer Siman 4) states that this is a takana d'rabbanon that min hatorah the midwife is not believed (because it is a davar sheberva which requires 2 kosher witnesses). This brings up the some obvious questions: 1. What did they do before this takana? It is clear that men were not around during childbirth so how was there any yichus? 2. When was this takana made? 3. How could the Torah have such an impractical approach to these matters? There Torah was given to human beings to observe and for thousands of years women gave birth with no men present. 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:56:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: By coincidence a recent daf yomi (kiddushin 72b) discusses the future status of mamzerim. The following is a non-literal translation of an article by R Avihud Shwartz from yeshivat har etzion. Anyone who wishes to see the Hebrew can request me to forward the original. This is not a continuation of the previous discussion. The gemara says that R Yose says that in the future (le-atid le-vo) mamzerim and netinim will be tahor while R Meir disagrees. The gemara followed by Rif and Rosh pasken like R Yose. Tosafot asks why the need for a psak on events that will only occur le-atid le-vo. The Rosh answers that the gemara is talking about a safek mamzer. But even R Yose agree that cannot solve the problem of a certain mamzer. R Yose is teaching that there is no need to distance from safek rmamzers today since even in the future they will not be revealed. Hence, R Yose is teaching a practical halacha for today. The Rashba says the gemara does occasionally pasken on future questions and so takes the gemara literally. He is then left with the question how can the prohibition against marrying a mamzer disappear le-atid lavoh. The Rashba has an amazing answer. In the generation before the Eliyahu the rabbis will allow mamzerim as an emergency measure (horaat shaah) but when the Moshiach comes they will be pasul. So according to the Rashba at the time of the geulah there will be a one time heter allowing known mamzerim. To explain this Rashba R Shwartz that a condition for the geulah is the achdut of the nation. Mamazerut introduces a separation among Jews. Therefore for one generation the nation will have a complete achdut between families. During the "regel" all Jews are chaverim (Chahiga 27) . One explanation is that that during the holiday everyone is assumed to keep the rules of taharah. However another explanation is that during the holiday everyone is consider a chaver as part of achdut of the people. R Yose sees mamzerut as a type of Tumah and as the Moshiach comes close this tumah will be removed. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:19:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:19:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524091930.GB15539@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) : that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. ... : What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down : bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, : chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large : percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" : halacha. Well, since you already are reading this midrashically, how about... Someone who doesn't bow at modim isn't being used literally, but as a description of a kind of ingrate. Mouths the words of thank you, but isn't moved by them. And perhaps the point being made by the Zohar is that kifui tovah can be the first step, the point at which a soul goes off course and ends up -- after a downward spiral through worse offenses -- not being revivable at techiyas hameisim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:34:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:00:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see : http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ : and especially : http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 : In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even : greater... The thing is, though, the conversation before this one, which I am presuming motivated this post, was in particular about kibud av va'eim. Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. : children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises : him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful : for this is also greater. Off topic: When prospective fathers call me asking for advice about adoption, one of my first pieces of advice is that you can only do it right if you're being as selfish about it as any other man looking to become a father. If you are doing it because you can look at the child and see in their behavior and personallity some continuation of yourself into the future, fine. But a child needs parents to grow into a healthy adult, not baalei chessed. And I'm not sure if teaching a child this line of reasoning is healthy. It gets in the way of viewing themselves as part of the family's shalsheles. On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 04:10:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I never found much written about the : meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times : influenced the decisions. I think part of the problem is that much of this has to be done subconsciously. The conditions of the times change the metzi'us about which the poseiq rules. And also the poseiq has to try his best to come up with an answer based on the Torah rather than zeitgeist, but no human being's best will ever fully exclude the mood of their era. So the second people start discussing how the times impact pesaq, the discussion itself will change the answer -- and in ways that add rigidity to halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 03:14:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:14:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> References: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. > But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos > of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? I am answering for R Zilberstein so take my words with a grain of salt. First the thrust of the shiur was on the rights of the adopted parents and not on the mitzva of kibud av ve-em. He thus stressed that the adoptive parents have a right to all decisions (apitropus) on the child and not the genetic parents. In particular they make all the decisions concerning education etc including the wedding. As part of the argument he mentioned the zecher shlomo (and chida) that Avraham owed no kibud to Terach once he handed him over to Nimrod. Thus kibud av disappered (pakah) once Terach abandonded Avraham. Since it was not the topic of the shiur he did not discuss if the mitzvah to honor the adoptive parent was mi-deoraitam derabban or something else. I brought from Rav Melamed that it is "only" because of hakarat hatov but he stressed In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children Of course if the adoptive parents are abusive there is certainly no requirement of kibud or hakarat hatov. > Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there > still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein > that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. >> I again refer to YD 240:18 where the Ramah states that there is no mitzva of kibud av ve-am when the parent is a rasha. I also explicitly brought from R Zilberstein that the halachot of mourning are different and that one is required to sit shiva and say kaddish for a parent who is a rasha including one who abandonded the child and presumably an abusive parent. I also brought from Rav Schachter (second hand) that if sitting shiva for an abusive parent would present psychological problems than the child is not required to sit shiva. I would personally explain RHS that strong psychological pain can be pikuach nefesh and overrides shiva and kaddish which are only derabbanan > I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to > the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would > treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. again look at YD 240:18 with Shach, Taz, Pitchei Teshuva etc -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:31:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:31:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies > are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? > I don't think there is any issue here: babies are issued identity bracelets literally seconds after they are born, long before they leave the delivery room. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:40:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57444BBF.209@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:37 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting > down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than > murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar > large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a > "minor" halacha. I don't know how minor this is. Think about it; we're not talking about someone who never comes to shul, and never hears Modim in the first place. What kind of person comes to shul, hears Modim and knows what it is, and yet doesn't bow? Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion of politics real estate er, the Daf. Yes, definitely the Daf. Even if you're deep in, er, the sugya, so long as you're aware that the chazan is saying Modim, you bow. The kind of person who comes to shul and *doesn't* bow at Modim must have some kind of agenda, like the fellow who says "Modim Modim", or "Al Kan Tzipor...", and thus is a pretty serious sinner. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 06:46:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:46:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: <politics real estate er, the Daf. >> The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Looking at it again Tosafot (appears on 16b) asks the same question that I mentioned that all Jews have a share in the world to come. Nevetheless as I mentioned Kaf HaChaim brings a Zohar that one does lose one share in the world to come for not bowing at modin. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 09:46 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back >> bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion >> of politics real estate er, the Daf. > The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim > in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking > about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:38:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: <> I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 13:47:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:47:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744BDCB.7010207@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:38 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. Not to adopting, but to pretending that the child is not adopted, which was the fashion in the early and middle 20th century. By the '70s this fad had mostly passed, and it became accepted that adopted children need to know the truth from the beginning. > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. > see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 See the last piece, at the end of page 2, by R Eliezerov, which explains the confusion that some people have. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:02:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:02:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> Message-ID: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at > modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:05:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:05:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> Message-ID: <5744C20F.1030206@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 05:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at >> modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. That is clearly not whom the gemara or the zohar means. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 20:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 03:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years >his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years >and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara >literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) > >I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) >that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. >First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in >techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend >11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in >techiyat hamettim. Interesting. Is the Kaf haChaim, and the Zohar, interpreting the gemara in?Bava Kamma 16a? http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41181&st=&pgnum=106 https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%90_%D7%98%D7%96_%D7%91 That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, allegorically, to mean?that those people won't be resurrected? Kol Tuv,Josh Waxman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 03:14:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:14:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: As you know, the question of whether a Bar Mitsva boy continues counting Sefira is the topic of much discussion and Bar Mitzva derashot. Sefardi Poskim tend to assur, Ashkenazi tend to be lenient. But one of the major arguments in favor of a BAR mitsva boy continuing to count is that before Bar Mitzvah he was rabbinically obligated (mi-derabanan) because of Hinnukh. I was recently asked about what to advise a BAT Mitsva girl who has been carefully counting every night - under the same conditions. It would seem that in contradistinction to a minor male, there is no obligation of hinnukh on minor females to count sefira. Indeed, a parent has no obligation of hinnukh on mitsvot that will not be obligatory when the child becomes an adult. Hence, a parent need not train his daughter in mitsvot aseh she-haZeman gramman. See R. Yehoshua Neuwirth, The Halachoth of Educating Children, Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1999) Dinim Kelaliyyim, parag. 2, p. 2; R. Barukh Rakovsky, ha-Katan ve-Hilkhotav, I, ch. 2, no. 7. So I think that - even according to the lenient Ashkenazic sources - it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. But she should definitely continue counting (without a Berakha) because counting is the ikkar mitsva - not the berakha. If someone has sources or solid grounds to be meikeil - I'd be happy and thankful to hear them. Kol Tuv Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 06:48:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:48:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?_May_a_Chassan_May_a_Chassan_who_is_get?= =?windows-1252?q?ting_married_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omerwho_is_getting_mar?= =?windows-1252?q?ried_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omer_shave_earlier_in_the_day?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_on_the_32nd_of_the_Omer=2C_before_shekiah=3F?= Message-ID: <1464184133111.74887@stevens.edu> >From OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a Chassan who is getting married the night of Lag B?Omer shave earlier in the day, on the 32nd of the Omer, before shekiah? What is the halacha concerning relatives and other guests attending the wedding? A. The prevalent custom is that one may get married on the night of Lag B?Omer. The halacha in general regarding shaving is to wait until after sunrise on the morning of Lag B?Omer. Rav Belsky zt?l ruled that the chassan and the fathers of the chassan and kallah may shave on the 32nd day of the Omer before shekiah. Other family members and guests should not shave before shekiah. Rav Belsky zt?l did permit them to bring a shaver to the wedding and shave there after shekiah. (See ???? ????, Volume One, pages 109 ? 110) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 10:24:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:24:17 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] expulsions Message-ID: why could not the Dannites leave the megadef in their midst, what would have been so terrible? it was brought in the name of the Alter of Kelm that you see from here how important to remove bad influence from their midst [and Dan were not considered the cream of the crop]. this may be a source for those that disagree with the tack that removing students from an educational mossad should not be done easily , as pikuach nefesh. the nefesh in question according to the Alter would be the rest of the institution..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 08:44:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:44:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?May_I_listen_to_slow_music_during_sefir?= =?windows-1252?q?as_ha=92omer=3F?= Message-ID: <1464277506499.46892@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May I listen to slow music during sefiras ha?omer? A. Music should not be listened to during sefira whether it is fast or slow, even though slow music is less prone to stimulate one to dance. Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim I:166) questions whether one may listen to music for enjoyment throughout the year, and concludes that although throughout the year there are lenient opinions, but during the period of sefira one must be strict. If one was in a state of moodiness or discontent, Rav Belsky zt?l was of the opinion that even during sefira he may lift his spirits with slow music, provided he does not listen excessively. (See ???? ????, Volume One, p. 106) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 11:32:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:32:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. >> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Yichud%20Prohibition%20-%20Part%201.htm The article does bring other poskim including the LR who were strict. Rav Jachter's conclusion is: Obviously, anyone to whom this issue is relevant should consult his Rav for a ruling. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 14:42:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:42:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160526214223.GA15628@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The : gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: :> Lo sochal alav chametz :> Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos :> Do not eat chametz with it :> For seven days you will eat matzos : Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. But this is derashah, not sevara. : .... Why should we resort to a lomdishe : juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for : us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: :> Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos :> Ki lo chametz :> Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah :> They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza :> Because it did not become chametz :> Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay : Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become : chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* : become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. Except that this is a historical statement, descriptive, not prescritive. Their wheat dough was matzah because it happened not to become chameitz -- for reasons the pasuq wants us to notice. Teshu'as H' keheref ayin. And peshat is a pasuq in chumash like in all of Tanakh is more concerned with Mussar than halakhah. It's not a halakhah book at the expense of being a Mussar book. As they say about ayin tachas ayin, peshat is values, derashah exists to provide the halakhah givien the mapping of those values to a limited reality and limited humans. But does that "ki" mean that the lack of becoming chameitz is a defining feature? Maybe a lack of sirchon would also be good lehalakhah, but didn't come up. (Given how much more available wheat was in Egypt.) "Ki" could refer to sufficient cause, you are assuming the pasuq means necessary cause. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 33rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total Fax: (270) 514-1507 submission to truth, and what results? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 19:23:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:23:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> On 05/26/2016 02:32 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah > > There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. > Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's > forbidden, and that's that. >> > > Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 04:13:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:13:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:21:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Asher Weiss Re: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Despite what I wrote two hours ago, I was just notified by my Brother Dov that he discussed the issue with Rav Asher Weiss Shlita last night at his Thursday night Shiur in Har Nof Jerusalem. Rav Asher holds that as long as there is continuity, the girl can continue counting with a berakha after her bat Mitsva. Yiyasher Kochacha and Shabbat Shalom Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il ________________________________ From: Aryeh Frimer Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:13 PM To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 08:44:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:44:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim Message-ID: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Off line conversation that I'm belatedly moving to Avodah: I asked: Starting at 21:6 (then 21:8, and etc etc.) the phrase "lechem Elokim" is used a number of times. Onkelos translates lechem as korban each time -- which is exactly what one would guess. While my Hebrew isn't great, I couldn't find a single mention of this in my Mikraos G'dolos (just about every mention of that pasuk talks about the first part of the pasuk, about forcing a Kohen to give a get). Perhaps it's just so obvious that lechem means korban here, that it's literally unremarkable. But, still, the use of the word "lechem" seems odd to me. It's as if the Torah is going out of its way to make things sound _more_ anthropomorphic, more primitive, than it needs to. (Granted -- now that I think about it, the phrase "rayach nichoach" also seems gratuitously anthropomorphic -- but: (a) there is some commentary on that phrase; and (b) perhaps we hear "rayach nichoach" so often we're just used to it.) Does anybody have any thoughts on why the Torah, after using the words "korban" or "olah" this entire Sefer, suddenly switches to "lechem" in this perek? R Seth Mandel answered: : From a linguistic point of view, I do not consider the usage remarkable. : This is the House of HQBH, and the qorbanot are His Daily Portion. : The use of the word lechem to describe "portion/allotment" I consider : a perfectly normal, if poetic, term. R MIcha Berger responded: ... It would be interesting to confirm this... Does anyone associate Vayiqra 21 with qorbanos that are forced by the calendar, to the exclusion of chatas, asham, todah, etc...? Does qedushas kohanim have more to do with such qorbanos than others? (And if so, does this relate to which qorbanos were allowed on bamos back in the days of bamos?) Anyone else have any thoughts? (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this significant at all?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 09:11:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:11:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim In-Reply-To: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: <574871A5.80303@sero.name> On 05/27/2016 11:44 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with > "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this > significant at all?) We say twice a day "Vaydaber YKVK ... es korboni *lachmi* le'ishai, rei'ach nichochi". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 11:52:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160527185244.GB24209@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:48:27AM +0000, Joshua Waxman via Avodah wrote: : That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is : located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, : allegorically, to mean that those people won't be resurrected? Teaser for my post But the name of the city was "Luz" originally by micha ? [15 Kislev '765] - Fri, Dec 16, 2005 And he [Ya'aqov] called the name of that place Beis-el, but the name of the city was Luz originally. - Bereishis 28:19 Luz, the original name for Beis-el, is apparently the name of a kind of tree, usually translated "chestnut". It's one of the kinds of wood from which Ya'aqov avinu made sticks for the sheep and goats to look at... Bereishis Rabba (69:8) discusses the amazing properties of living in the city of Luz: * They always told the truth. * No one in the city died. When people got old and tired, they needed to move out for nature to take its course. * The city was never conquered by Sancheirev, and wasn't destroyed by Nevuchadnetzar at the end of the first commonwealth... Luz is also the name of a special bone in the body, where the skull and spine meet. Two medrashim associate the luz bone with Hadrian y"sh.... Luz seems particularly connected with Yaiaqov, the one who renames it. First, his service of G-d centers around emes, truth, the middah exemplified by the citizens of Luz. He uses the luz sticks... ... The mishnah says "derekh eretz qodmah laTorah -- proper behavior in society is a prerequisite to Torah." Our aggaditos and midrashim seem to converge on underscoring that point. Luz is the city of truth, it has the permanence of truth both territorially and in the lifespans of its inhabitants. And it's truth, the personality trait about which Yaiaqov centers his service of Hashem, which determines techiyas hameisim. All of these medrashim refer to Luz, to the trait. When referring to applying the pursuit of truth to Torah study or worshipping Hashem, then we progress from Luz to Beis-el. The stick shows the influence of environment... The bone luz is situated just where the mind connects to the body. It is therefore, in a very real sense, "beis keil", G-d's "home" in this world. Ya'aqov builds a circle of stones in which to sleep at this spot, which -- as R' Hirsch notes ad loc -- is the first home of Israel. He gets a vision of a ladder between heaven and earth, an externalized luz bone between mind and body. Once one has the foundation of "Luz", one has the proper personality and attitude to provide some solidity in time and in social context. Then one is capable of building that derekh eretz into Torah, making their soul a house of G-d. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 34th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 and maintain a stable relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 29 05:36:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 08:36:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> References: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160529123638.GB24648@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:23:15PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>> There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. :>> Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's :>> forbidden, and that's that. :> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. : No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you : were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. OTOH, given the size of the observant American community loyal to RMF's pesaqim, anything he says can't simply be dismissed as "rare" either. RYBS was meiqil as well. And, FWIW, was R' Zvi Flaum, a talmid of R' Dovid Lifshitz's - now RY of Shaarei Tzion, oour LOR back when we adopted and the question first arose. I am also curious... RMMS pasqened? Didn't he generally delegate that role to others, leaving himself as head mashpia / moreh derekh, rather than moreh hora'ah? Did this somehow become an emotionally charged machloqes, like eruv for some reason tends to? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 36th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in Fax: (270) 514-1507 being a stable and reliable partner? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 05:25:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:25:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: R. Aryeh Frimer posits that a girl who becomes Bat Mizva during sefira should not continue counting with a bracha after becoming bat mitzva, since, unlike a boy, she had no mitzva to count as a minor because of chinuch. I find this very counterintuitive; on the contrary, it seems to me that a girl has more reason to continue counting with a bracha than a boy. A boy upon becoming bar-mitzva during sefira goes from a status of non-chiyuv (obligation) to chiyuv; one may question whether what he counted in a state of non-chiyuv "counts" when he enters a state of chiyuv. On this point, some poskim say that there was a chiyuv all along, at least rabbinically, so no fundamental change took place; some disagree. A girl, on the other hand, has no chiyuv either before or after her bar mitzva; in this respect, nothing changed at all when she became bat mitzva. Thus, if the girl has been making a bracha on sefira throughout the sefira period, in keeping with Ashkenazi practice, it seems to me that she should continue to make a bracha on sefira after becoming bat mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:42:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:42:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas Message-ID: my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 08:34:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:34:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parshah Dual Dichotomy 5776 Message-ID: <1464622469992.18876@stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6863 For many of us in the know, as well as to the surprise of anyone who might be thinking of traveling to or from Eretz Yisrael, say anytime from after Pesach until Shabbos Chazon, right before Tisha B'Av, something is off. I am referring to the weekly parshah, which would not be the same regularly scheduled one in Chutz La'aretz as it is in Eretz Yisrael. Truthfully, this type of dichotomy actually happens not so infrequently, as it essentially occurs whenever the last day of a Yom Tov falls on Shabbos. In Chutz La'aretz where Yom Tov Sheini is halachically mandated,[1] a Yom Tov Krias HaTorah is publicly leined, yet, in Eretz Yisrael (unless by specific Chutznik minyanim[2]) the Krias HaTorah of the next scheduled parshah is read. This puts Eretz Yisrael a parshah ahead until the rest of the world soon 'catches up', by an upcoming potential double-parshah, which each would be read separately in Eretz Yisrael. See the above URL for much more about this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:18:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jack Stroh via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 18:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> References: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Message-ID: <20160531013511.GA21014@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 02:18:52PM -0400, Jack Stroh via Avodah wrote: : Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with : Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the : disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. Back a step... Our current leining schedule post-dates Chazal, the standardization ceoms from the geonim. And originally it was in use in Bavel. In EY, 3 or 3-1/2 year leining systems were more common. So the systme was designed for chu"l; the parshios chu"l shuls aren't doubling up aren't supposed to be doubled. It's Israel that slipped out of proper alignment with geonic intent. So the question really is why doesn't Israel fall back into line and minimize their drift from the original geonic schedule. Well, this year there are no doubled parshios for them to split until Matos-Masei -- just in time to realign Devarim with the 9 days. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 02:17:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:17:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children Message-ID: <> <> I agree with Micha. I again bring a list of prominent poskim who agree with RMF so it certainly is not a solitary opinion. I would strongly argue that in practice most people follow the lenient opinion. The article I previously quoted brought those to disagreed and concluded that one should check it out with his local rabbi. He certainly did not dismiss the lenient opinion. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. Rav Nachum Rabinovitch (the prominent Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivat Hesder of Maaleh Adumim) is cited in Techumin 10:317 by Rav Azariah Berzon as agreeing with the aforementioned Poskim who permit adoptive parents to have Yichud with their adoptive children. Rav Rabinovitch notes that Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:08:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:08:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160531180845.GA12478@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:17:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Rabinovitch notes that : Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. R' Zundel Salant says that it was the zekhus of adopting the children of those who died in makas choshekh that we were redeemed from Mitzrayim. Since we are obligated to remember yetzi'as Mitzrayim, I can't call it "time immemorial", but since our birth as a nation, certainly. >From : Chamushim Hashem brought the nation around, via the path of the desert, the Red Sea; and the Children of Israel arose chamushim (to be defined) from the Land of Egypt. - Shemos 13:8 ... and the Jews enthusiastically departed from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Unqelus (ad loc) ... with good deeds... - Jerusalem Targum (ad loc) ... one in five. -Tanchuma (Warsaw ed. #1), Mechilta ... and the Jews departed with five infants from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Yonasan (ad loc) Rashi defines "chamushim as "armed", which underlies the Targumim of Unqelus and Yerushalmi. Armed in a spiritual sense, prepared with good deeds. Another definition would be from chameish, five, leading to the medrash concluding that only 1/5 of the Jewish were saved from Egypt. Rashi adds that the other 4/5 of the population died in Egypt during the plague of darkness. These were the people who didn't merit redemption; those who believed in the Egyptian paganism and wanted to stay. Deriving chamushim from the number five is also the point of departure for the Targum Yonsan's "departed with five infants." But the medrash on Shemos, describing the Egypt experience, told us that we had six children at a time. How then can the Targum Yonasan here mean that every Jew left with five children, as though this smaller number is something that should impress us? The Be'er Yoseif therefore believes the naive read of the Targum Yonasan is incorrect. Instead, the Be'er Yoseif explains all these targumim in light of each other. The word chamushim was chosen not despite the ambiguity, but because of all its connotations. Four fifths of the Jewish people died rather than being saved. But what about their children? The youth didn't deserve death, even if they agreed with their parents -- as children, they aren't accountable or punishable for their crimes. The Be'er Yoseif explains that this means that each of the 600,000 men left Egypt had to have left with five families of children -- his own, and those of four families left orphaned by this punishment. Far more than the six-at-a-time that were born to them. This is not only the intent of the Targum Yonasan, but also, raising others' children the "good deeds" of the Jerusalem Targum, as well as the "zerizus", the enthusiasm, of the Targum Unqelus. They were prepared and surrounded by the mitzvah of taking in these children in need. Today we think of adoption as something someone does when they r"l can't have children of their own. However, in light of this devar Torah, we see that this mitzvah played a central role in defining us as a people. According to the Be'er Yosef, it is the merit of adopting orphans that rendered us ready for the redemption from Egypt! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 09:15:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ie in ghettoized Europe , the Accursed Wandering Jew was only the killer of the 'saviour'; not much better in Moslem Middle East. In Modern Times, it can't refer to the million chassidim , to whom isolationism is the ideal , not to mention theologies of the value of the gentile. In Litvish models, ideally the Jew should be confined to the beis medrash , and the spouse 'kvoodah pnima'. It is only the lack of Manna that interferes and forces bedieved one out of the ghetto. The OTD Jews of the last 200 yrs who have impacted every walk of life and every class of endeavor in academia , commerce , culture and liberal polity can not have been what chazal had in mind. The Israel model is the most vilified political entity on Earth. If it's only a messianic concept , then it has nothing to do with the Jews , only the Messiah. so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:40:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:40:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? > > SNIP > > so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, > practically. > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or they need work in this area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 03:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:25:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/31/2016 9:40 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in > Yishayahu. It is a real concept. No, it is not. > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? The phrase ohr l'goyim doesn't exist. There are three verses where something similar exists. Isaiah 49:6 says that Hashem has placed us l'ohr goyim. Isaiah 42:6 also says that Hashem placed us l'ohr goyim. And Isaiah 60:3 says that nations will walk in our light. There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us. And it's not for any specific generation, I don't think, but all of them. We are the example. Whenever I hear "ohr l'goyim" it irks me, because it's such a mistake. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> References: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160601165119.GB20066@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:25:31PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The : former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the : nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among : nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us.... This is clearly peshat in Yeshaiah 60:3, "beholkhu goyim le'oreikh..." But "le'or goyim", in 42:6 and 49:6... I would have said something close to the reverse; to me le'or goyim sounds more like an imperative. An or lagoyim is a descriptive construction. Yeshaiah would be saying that we are light for the nations. L'or goyim is more prescriptive, we are "to provide light for nations". Not as a light, but in to be one. And it's up to us to actually illuminate. BTW, according to Rashi (42:6) those goyim are the shevatim, not other nations. And according the Metzudas David, it's a messianic prophecy, not an imperative before-hand. The thing is, we're obligated to serve as a nation of kohanim in the here-and-now regardless of Yeshaiah. So I see this as a discussion of peshat in the pesuqim, with no pragmatic difference to hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 39th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliable person? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:22:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:22:27 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it >> practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. > It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then > show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other > nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or > they need work in this area. my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of humanity in all generations; except possibly recent times, when those clearly NOT living a halachic life are seen by some at least to have been a source of blessing... furthermore, we fast on the day the Bible was translated, so we can't even say that the other Abrahamic religions is the explanation, since they become in a sense Fruit of a poisonous tree, to use the legal analogy From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 02:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:58:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: I am gratified that my understanding that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during the sefira period can continue to count with a bracha was also expressed to RAFrimer by RMH. Unlike RAFrimer, I do not think that this this constitutes a "fundamental misunderstanding" of brachot women make on time-bound mitzvoth, according to the Rema and standard Ashkenazic practice. If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her chiyuv-level not having changed. I am completely unsurprised that Rav Asher Weiss paskened that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during sefira can continue counting with a bracha, based on his understanding of the mitzvah of sefirat haomer, as appears in Minchat Asher Vayikra chapter 51. R. Asher asks a series of questions that indicate that sefirat haomer is different from other mitzvoth which are performed verbally (see there). He then explains as follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting avodat Hashem. Shofar, lulav, matza are examples of the former. Biur chametz and maakeh are examples of the latter. We make brachot on both categories of mitzvot, but there are differences between them. Sefirat Haomer is a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the mitzvah itself; the avodaat Hashem of sfirat haomer is knowing the count every day, not saying the words themselves. Saying the words is the action by which the desired result is achieved (unlike other verbal mitzvoth like kriyat shma and hallel in which saying the words themselves is avodat Hashem). R. Asher explained elsewhere that mitzvot in which the tozaa is the mitzvah do not require kavana , which is why someone who answers the question "what's the count tonight?" without intending to perform the mitzvah of sefira is nevertheless considered to have performed the mitzvah. In sefira, when a day is counted, when the result of the counting has been achieved (the person knows, by counting, what day it is), the mitzvah has been done. My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) , even if strictly he is not obligated; when he becomes a gadol, he is considered not to have missed any days, and can continue to count with a bracha. As Rav Asher explicitly paskened, this applies to a k'tana as well. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 04:36:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:36:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25c18a21-7bfc-78f4-f9a0-30ba738263a7@zahav.net.il> To give a metaphor: If the machine generating the light is working improperly, the light could be dangerous and it needs to be sent out for repair. Without getting into the question of how the machine broke down (God directing or us choosing to break it), it is clear that if we aren't doing the job, a tikkun is required Ben On 6/1/2016 6:22 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged > history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of > humanity in all generations; From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 07:33:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:33:30 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>>It shows we or they need work in this area. ---- meila i can understand blaming us . but to blame 'they' , the goyim is saying they refused to hear the gospel..... >>>>>>If the machine generating the light is working improperly ---- or properly working light, just that the potential buyers threw it in garbage I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to listen to our message... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:21:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: I am responding on avodah to some remarks on arevim > So if the health minister happens to be ... anti-vaxx ..., suddenly the > halacha has to turn around?! And after the next election it turns around > again?! Look at what happened in Israel two years ago, when German > was health minister and decided to end fluoridation. Now Litzman is > restarting it. Was everyone supposed to change their minds in those two > years, or accept that the truth changed, just because the government did?! This completely misunderstands the role of government rules. Besides dina de-malchuta we learn that if not for the government we would live in anarchy everyone decides for themselves what is best. Medieval philosophers and commentaries debate why one must listen to the government. Opinions range from divine rights to the king can kick you out to more modern theories that the citizens accept the rule by staying in the country and especially by accepting privileges from the government like the use of roads, army, schools etc. In consonance with the Mishna we listen to the government because without it there is chaos. The government specifies safety laws, traffic laws, tries thieves and murderers, has laws against sexual and drug abuse There is nothing in these theories about the government always being right. Obviously, governments are made from people who make decisions and different countries have different laws some more liberal and some more conservative. However in each country one is required by HALACHA to follow the government regulations (as long as they don't conflict with halacha). If the regulations change over time then yes the observant Jew much change his behavior just as he changes when doctors change their views or when a bet din changes their views. When batei dinim in different locales disagree then each community must follow their local bet din. Pointing out that a different bet din disagrees doesn;t matter one must follow the local bet din. Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. ------------------------- In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Some possibilites that have been offered include 1) There is a mitzvat aseh to listen to the rabbis 2) It is based on logic similar to above, otherwise it leads to chaos He went into a side discussion of the status of sevara (deoraita?) and a Rav Akiva Eiger. 3) The rabbis are smarter than us and so we should listen. RMA points out that there is an intrinsic problem. If the reason is too good then we are back to question that it becomes a deoraita. If it is weak then listening to the rabbis becomes wishy-washy, ie if circumstances change, if one disagrees with their reasoning etc. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 09:49:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603165041.NPMS27913.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> R S Newman has posed the question in a provocatively interesting way. Thanks! Musing out loud, is it possible that the concept applies to Torah/Torah values in addition to its people? For example, doesn't the Rambam offer that Xtianity and Islam, both "offshoots", if you will, of Judaism, have moved the world's population (at least partially, in the case of some part of Xtianity) away from A"Z? As a second data point, R Jonathan Sacks often points out how many of the world's ideas are rooted in Torah (e.g., equality (even the King!) before the law, which, in turn, gave rise to (because it was a necessary pre-condition of) democracy, etc.). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 11:04:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: <133b75.a02d7da.44832097@aol.com> ohr lagoyim when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ....so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. >>>> It began long before Chazal, in the time of Avraham Avinu. (The concept, not the exact words.) And Yitzchak and Yakov. "All the nations of the world will be blessed through you." For the incredible moral and intellectual influence the Jews have had on the rest of the world throughout history, see Thomas Cahill's book, *The Gifts of the Jews* and read Dennis Prager's review of the book in *First Things* which summarizes the book's main points. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/11/002-cahills-gift Hirsch in the introduction to his commentary on Tehillim shows that Dovid Hamelech meant for Sefer Tehillim to be used as a book of prayer by all the nations of the world and indeed, this has come to pass, with Tehillim having been translated into practically every language in the world. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:22:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:22:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:37:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:33:30AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . : so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to : listen to our message... As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those words exist anyway? RBW assumes that it does, and therefore if we are unhappy with the rate of progress, we should asume the light needs fixing, not that its users are neglecting it. But I have no doubt that our influence has had a central role in the progress of civilization. Whether or not we consciously worked at it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 11:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:20:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier For a detailed answer see http://rabbikaganoff.com/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:11:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> References: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57539853.9030809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:22 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the > : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? > > The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? The first 11 chapters of Devarim is a tochacha. But it's not curses, which is what we usually associate with the term. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > words exist anyway? In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; that people will come to EY to do business with Shevet Zevulun, and while they're there they will do some touristing and visit Y'm to see what is to be seen, and be so impressed that they'll accept the 7 mitzvos and bring zivchei tzedek. So there's no missionising, no outreach, just us being ourselves, and those who are already prone to be attracted to the light will be attracted. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 09:04:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:04:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160605160452.GA11606@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:20:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. : The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier : For a detailed answer see : http://rabbikaganoff.com/ With all due respect to RYK, what I said earlier is historically correct: the currently leining system was designed by geonim for Bavel. So chu"l leining for the 8th of Pesach instead of Acharei-Mos was correct scheduling. It is Israel that got ahead. So the major question is why does EY wait until Matos Mas'ei to split a double parashah and fall back into sync with the design? And that's easy -- because all the double parshios before then are already split! If you want to ask why the ge'onim have us splitting all the double parshios, yes, that has to do with timing the tochachah to be 2 Shabbasos before Shavuos. But that's not a why we didn't catch up to EY yet thing -- catching up was never a goal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 05:45:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 08:45:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wrote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? There are multiple r Avigdor miller shiurim where he demonstrates clearly that Jewish ideas have slowly entered the goyishe (western) world thru us. Where Jews did not live, our teachings have yet to have the same effect (far east, Africa, etc) This is also the message of r Aryeh Kaplan in 'If You Were God' http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48970646.html See r ken Spiro's 12 part series world perfect where he demonstrates that this has occurred http://www.aish.com/sem/wp/ Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c learn from us) Its true we spent most of our history just trying to survive, but by osmosis (and more) our ideas and ideals have molded and raised the level of humanity as a whole Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 10:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:09:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> References: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> Message-ID: <57545CC9.3050301@sero.name> On 06/05/2016 08:45 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient > madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be > dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c > learn from us) The gemara says that "Israel was only exiled among the nations so that converts should be added to them". Note the passive form. Even in galus we were not expected to actively recruit gerim, but rather to live among the nations so that those who are naturally attracted to our way of life would be able to find us and avail themselves of an option that they would otherwise never know about. Not even a symbolic hishtadlus is expected of us; we are simply to do our own thing, but in a place where potential gerim will see us. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 12:46:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:46:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those : >words exist anyway? : : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; ... The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an imperative to put in conscious effort as well. My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to avodas Hashem. Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat in "le'or goyim". There is also a possibility that le'or goyim is a messianic prophecy. Like And the same questions could be raised with "Halkhu amim rabim... Ki miTzion teitzei Sorah..." De facto, it will? We must act in a way that causes Torah to be spread from Zion? Now? Le'asid lavo? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 13:00:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:00:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitzva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: In discussing the case of a girl who became bat mitzva in the course of sefira, it is instructive to consider the analysis of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik (the Rov) of the Bahag's opinion on sefirat haomer (see Harrei Kedem Volume II chapter 112). The position of the Bahag is that one who does not count one day of omer does not make a bracha on subsequent days The Rov did not accept the widely-held opinion that the Bahag holds that there is one mitzva to count all 49 days. Rather, each day of sefira is a separate mitzva. However, on each day, there is a "din mesuyam", a particular law that the previous days have been counted. If this is not true, one is counting not sequentially, but with skipping, not the count the Torah specified. Skipping a day invalidates each and every subsequent day, not the totality of the count. As is well known, according to the Bahag, one who forgot to count at night counts during the day without a bracha, but may subsequently count with a bracha. The Rov asked: according to the Bahag, does one fulfill the mitzva of sefira during the day? If so, why doesn't one make a bracha? If not, why may one continue counting subsequent days with a bracha? The Rov held that the Bahag held like Rabbeinu Tam that the mitzva of sefira is only at night, and when one counts during the day he does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all. However, when counting during the day, one does a "maase sefira", an act of counting, even if he does not perform "mitzvat sefira". This maase sefira makes his counting connected, and he can continue counting with a bracha, although there was one day on which he did not perform the mitzva of sefira at all. According to the Bahag, one who forgot to count the 49th night gains nothing by counting the following day, since one does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all during the day. Counting during the day is not in itself a mitzva, but only helps to enable counting subsequent days with a bracha. Even if one were to say that a katan (minor) does not have a chiyyuv (obligation) to count sefira, and a katan that counts has not performed the mitzva of sefira, nevertheless his count is a "maase sefira", an act of counting. In this way the count of a minor is similar to counting during the day; it is a masse sefira which enables one to continue counting with a bracha, even when the katan becomes a gadol. Clearly, this applies to a minor girl exactly as it does to a minor boy. The Rov noted that even if one were to know that he will not be able to count every night until Shavuot, he counts every night with a bracha until he misses, since each night's count is a separate mitzva, and skipping a future night will not invalidate a previous night's mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 23:49:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:49:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 6/5/2016 10:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > : >words exist anyway? > : > : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; > ... > > The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort > and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an > imperative to put in conscious effort as well. > > My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a > statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being > a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? And I think the answer is "no". > So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to > shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim > either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to > avodas Hashem. Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the nations of the world. > Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. > [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, > hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. And again, no chiyuv here. > > Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... > > It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that > is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat > in "le'or goyim". No one is saying it isn't a good thing. But we prioritize, and whether a thing is an obligation or not goes into the calculation of those priorities. This isn't an obligation. To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 19:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 22:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ain machlokess bo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5b76f9d9-80e4-c222-c9e6-881437eb0fb9@gmail.com> In //Dynamics of Dispute/,/ I develop the idea that the Rambam, when he says that there is no //machlokess/ /b'payrush mekubal miSinai/,/ he does not mean that there were no disputes *about* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. He means that there was no disagreeing *against* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. In note 12 (p. 82) I wrote that in addition to indications that this is so from other writings of the Rambam and their applications to talmudic sources, The //Mevo HaTalmud//, attributed to Shmuel HaNaggid, indicates this definition of the word //machlokess// as well. I have just found that the Meiri on Avos 5:19, regarding a different subject, explicitly gives this definition to the word //machlokess//, explicitly negating it in the other sense. He writes: It seems to me that [the use of the word] ''machlokess'' attaches only to the one who responds to the first [speaker]. I.e. ...when a second person responds [to the first] and says, ''What you say is proper to do is improper, or what you taught is wrong,'' this [response] is the ''machlokess.''...the "machlokess" only refers to one of the two sides, the one that responds to the first. Another way to put it: Sometimes the word //machlokess/ /refers to an opposing opinion, not to two or more opposing opinions. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 05:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:56:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> >> No one is saying it isn't a good thing. ..To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. R Avigdor miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 09:22:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:22:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. ------ the only problem i have with their approach is that , had the Jewish people been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies their job was basically done---since a billion xtians then took over , and a billion moslems after that . the direct interaction of jews w goyim in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to have minimal direct impact . where jews have major impact in modern times , in science , entertainment , ,media etc are ways that clearly were not only not what Scripture had in mind, but in many cases directly contravening Tradition.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 04:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:56:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R > Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the > requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo > tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban > becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita > is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 12:49:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:49:09AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to :> shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim :> either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to :> avodas Hashem. : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the : nations of the world. So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a tzivui? :> Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. : Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. (I just noticed this tied to "mamlekhes kohanim" quite smoothly.) We also see from hilkhas geneivas aku"m that chilul hasheim and qiddush hasheim involve whether we ch"v distance aku"m from AYH or merit to draw them closer. So I guess we could add qiddush hasheim and avoiding chilul among the list of potetial imperatives that say le'or goyim in more clearly tzivui terms. Going back to the parshanus of le'or goyim... RET posted on Areivim in 2012 (quoted then by RnCL, with permission at , quoting IE and the Radaq (49:6) that le'or goyim refers to Yeshaiah's nevu'ah 00 the light is the nations seeing that his nevu'ah was fulfilled. And thus not about the Jewish people at all. To which RnCL replied citing the Rashi (as I already wrote, in one place he takes "goyim" to mean shevatim, and thus uplifting other Jews) and then quotes the other Radaq (42:6) and translated: > And so you would be also l'or goyim like it says "And nations shall > walk to/in your light -v'helchu goyim l'orech" [Yeshiyahu 60:3 - where > it is pretty clear that it is the nation Israel being talked about] > and the light is the Torah that shall go out to them from Tzion. And then translating Metzudas David (ad loc): > L'or goyim - to light the eyes of all the nations to know that Hashem > hu haElokim. Closing with her own thesis: > And indeed I think that it is the other pasuk quoted by the Radak, ie > v'helchu goyim l'orech that is the one that is the real source for the > common understanding which is usually labelled as Or l'goyim. That pasuk > is quoted all over the place (unlike l'or goyim), for example in dozens > of places in midrash raba, tanchuma, pesikta d'rav kahana etc And a lot > of the commentary in the various midrashic sources involves analogies > between the shemen zayis that lights the Beis HaMikdash and Yisrael who > lights the world -eg Shemos Raba which goes on to say and so our fathers > were called zayis because they gave light to all with their emunah. > > That is, to my mind, the concept which we understand to be or l'goyim is > unquestionably there in the sources - it is just generally drawn from a > psuk that is much more of a mouthful (Yeshiyahu 60:3). L'Or goyim, does, > it would seem according to all the classic commentators, mean a light to > the nations, as we would understand it, but, at least on one of the two > pasukim where it is used, it is understood as referring to Isaiah himself, > not the Jews in general (but note that it is clearly a good thing, > and high praise of Isaiah, that he should be considered this). And, > as so often seems to be the case (and as discussed with tikun olam) > the phrase which tends to roll off the lips in the common parlance is > not the strictly correct biblical terminology, but the one that sort of > sounds right to the ear of the layperson to get to the concept of which > they are aware. To continue her thought to focus on 60:3, I see BB 75a explains vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as a messianic prophecy, and someting HBH will do, not even hilkhisa demeshichasa. Metzudas David: "As to say, from you they will learn the ways of Hashem and you will light their eyes." Also, not clearly a tzivui. The Tanya 1:36 takes "vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as messianic, and thus not a tzivui for the here-and-now The Malbim takes the pasuq as prophetic and descriptive, linking the seifa, "yeilekhu leneged zarchakha" to "ukhvodo alayikh yra'eh" in the previous pasuq. Okay, given 60:2, we could presume 60:3 isn't imperative either. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:38:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:38:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> References: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> Message-ID: <20160606203815.GB983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:56:44AM -0400, M Cohen wrote: : R Avigdor Miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out : and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own : backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Maybe in theory we should clean up our own backyard first, but... Anyone in kiruv would question whether they are all that separable. My own most inspiring Shabbasos were in NCSY, experiencing it with people for whom it was one of their first few attempts to observe Shabbos. Similarly, anyone who has given a shiur will tell you that the topics they prepared to teach others are those they know best. And even during the shiur -- umitalmidai yoseir mikulam. Maybe if we invested effort being a mamlekhes kohanim, we would be better at avoiding messing up our own backyard too. And for a Hirschain perspective... The Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch by Rabbi Mayer Schiller http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/humanisim_rsrh.pdf Jewish Action (Summer 5759/1981) pp. 21-26. Vol.49, No. 3 On pg 24 (PDF pg 4) he quotes 19 Letters where RSRH talks about a world in which every Jew would be a mutely eloquent example and teacher of universal righteousness and universal love; if thus the dispersed of Israel were to show themselves everywhere on earth as the glorious priests of God and pure humanity... RSRH makes a duty to set an example. Not to actively teachm but not to ignore the example we set either. And then there's the Semag (Asei 74), which I translated for : I already expounded to the exiled from Jerusalem who are in Spain and the other Roman exiles that now that the exile has gone on far too long, it is appropriate for Israel to separate from the vanities of the world and grab onto the signet of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is truth, and not to lie neither to Jew nor to gentile. Not to mislead them in any way. To sanctify themselves even in what is permitted to them, as it says, "The remnant of Israel do not commit sin, do not speak lies, and one won't find a false tongue in their mouths." (Tzefaniah 3:13) And when Hashem comes to save them, the nations will say, "It was done justly, for they are a people of truth and the Torah of truth is in their mouths." But if they act with the gentiles with trickery, they will say, "See what the Holy One, blessed be He did, that chose for His portion thieves and con-men." Also, it says, "I will plant her [the Jewish People] for myself in the land..." (Hosheia 2:25) A person doesn't plant a kur [of seed] but to produce numerous kurim. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, planted Israel among the lands so that converts will join them (Pesachim 87b) and every time that they conduct themselves with trickery, who will attach to them? It seems that unless we act in a way that makes it obvious to non-Jews that our redemption would be just, the Semag expects us to continue to languish here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:39:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> On 06/06/2016 03:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I > : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the > : nations of the world. > > So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > tzivui? 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. 2) What is the origin of This idea you keep pushing, that "mamlechet kohanim" has some connection to outreach to anyone, let alone nochrim? 2a)Since when is that a kohen's job? 2b) Pshat in "kohanim" is princes, as in "uvnei David kohanim" (Rashi) This whole idea is at most, again, a nice drasha for a rov in shul, or for a mussar sefer, but certainly not relevant to halacha. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:43:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:43:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.)" What you suggested is what the Ran says, however, the Ramban explicitly rejects this idea. R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? Therefore, he explains that by dinim d'rabbanan what is not important is the actual mitzva act, but the fact that you listened to the Chachamim and did not rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:51:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I referenced who explains the Ramabam. R' Meir Simcha makes a very different assumption. He assumes that every d'rabbanan is NOT necessarily the ratzon hashem and therefore by d'rabbanans what is important is that you listen to the chachamim and not rebel, the actual action is not as important ayen sham. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 12:42:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:42:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160607194229.GA27374@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:22:53AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : the only problem i have with their approach is that, had the Jewish people : been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies : their job was basically done -- since a billion xtians then took over, : and a billion moslems after that. the direct interaction of jews w goyim : in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to Unless you think our presence had a cultural impact that explains things like why the doctrine of trinity evolved and why they don't go on Crusades anymore. On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a :> tzivui? : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. Targum Yonasan ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be called on to serve. Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. Kehunah is a duty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:22:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> On 6/7/2016 11:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:39:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <575730E4.7050400@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :>So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > :>tzivui? > : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a > : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be > : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; > : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. > Targum Yonasan You mean, of course, "Yonasan", i.e. a version of Targum Yerushalmi that a printer mistakenly attributed to Yonasan. But of course we all know that, I hope. I just expected to see the scare quotes. > ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be > called on to serve. A kohen's shimush is the avodah in the BHMK, not anything else. It's (1) a promise, not a tzivuy or a nevuah; and (2) has nothing to do with "service" to anyone. > Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many > hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against > this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in > inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job > by definition. *If* it's a job, it's a job of avodah BHMK, and the pasuk is promising that if you do as I tell you then I will award you this prestigious job. But Rashi says the *pshat* here is not a job at all, but a status. He has to say that, because al pi pshat non-bechorim were *never* intended to be kohanim meshamshim. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:01:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573627.6060306@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" > as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem > lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". 1. I think you got that backwards. Ve'atem tihyu is the prat, and Eileh had'varim is the klal. 2. I fail to see the point you're deriving from this. How does this make it a tzivuy of any kind? However you read it, it's still a promise, a proposed deal, not a command. > As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. > Kehunah is a duty. Meyuchad is not a duty, it's a status. What one is meyuchad *for* can be a duty, as here (except for the problem that non-bechorim were never intended to do avodah), but the yichud is not a duty. "Mekudeshes" doesn't mean "obligated in the duties of a wife", it's the status of being dedicated to one man, though that status by its nature *comes* with those obligations. And "harei at mekudeshes li" is certainly not a command to do those things that a wife is obligated to do for her husband. It's predicated on an understanding that she *will* do them, but it's not itself any kind of command. But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:40:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 05:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries > : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. > > Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 23:02:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:02:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: The Megilla describes how Ruth sneaks in to where Boaz is sleeping and lies down at his feet and that Boaz woke up in the middle of the night to find her there. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (19b) states that Boaz had a bigger Nisayon with Ruth then Yosef had with Potifer's wife because Ruth was single and tehora (see Rashi there). I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? I would bet that the answer for everyone (male) reading this is no. The thought would not even cross our mind. So why does the Gemara state that this was a tremendous nisayon for Boaz? It's not like there is no yetzer hara for arrayos today, there certainly is, just look around at what is going on in the world around us and even within the frum community. And yet, IMHO the average person would not see the situation described in the Megilla as a nisayon at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:09:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:09:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. Ben On 6/8/2016 8:02 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you > woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) > lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 13:01:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:01:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up Message-ID: in this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work in the long run. i wonder if the claim is true, and if so, how could there be a hetter for such a thing---multiples are riskier than singletons; i can't imagine that a posek could allow that jsut for budgetary reasons... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:23:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:23:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > > Even if that is true, why does that make it a big nisayon for boaz? It's either an issur drabbanan or doraysa for him to sleep with her. Why would he be tempted? He also happened to be an old man. If a woman came up to you and made it clear that she wants to sleep with you would you be tempted? Would that be a tremendous nisayon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:42:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:42:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] samael Message-ID: not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger of doing so? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:26:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:26:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] samael In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589BAA.7090905@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 03:42 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have > never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger > of doing so? One is not supposed to pronounce the name of *any* angel that isn't also a human name. As far as I know this is a universally-accepted rule. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 14:55:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:55:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608215544.GA2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:13:32AM +0000, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: : RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she : wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, : and never will be Chayav... I am wondering if the chiyuv of chinukh to follow minhagim may be more binding than any minhag itself. If she is counting because that's what women in her eidah do, poerhaps her post-bat mitzvah chiyuv is *less*. : To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here : regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman : geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, : Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh : haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a.] a : woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is : a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives : heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant : berakhot... And because "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" is a statement about HQBH commanding the tzibur, so there is no sheqer inan einah metzuvah ve'osah saying "vetzivanu". For that matter, how does making a berakhah on a mitzvah performed for chinukh work? And returning to the case of an edah where women are nohagos to count the omer, an Ashkenaziah would make a berakhah on a minhag too. On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote: : If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a : bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah : (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able : to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her : chiyuv-level not having changed. If in all cases, she is making a berakhah on the tzibur's command, and perhaps the over la'asiyasah is what triggers why say the berakhah now rather than some other time. I think the list of sources RAF provides speak more to what constitutes a trigger for saying the berakhah than what the berakhah is on. And lemaaseh, chinukh, minhag and einah metzuvah ve'osah are each sufficient for Ashkenazios. : ... [R Asher Weis] then explains as : follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action : (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the : result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to : achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting : avodat Hashem... Sounds like a sibling to the Brisker gavra vs cheftzah. Whether the gavra has to do the pe'ulah, or the tzotza'ah must take effect onthew cheftzah ... : My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a : mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the : mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a : maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is : definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan : counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira : (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) ... Yeah, but it's not only the child counting, it's the child's mind which knows the count. Kind of like the non-Jew made the maaqah, but on his own home! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:25:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:25:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the : government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not : knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. Many accuse the AhS of writing things that would to appeal to the govt censor. But not to distort the din, only in cases where he thought the readership would realize he was obviously doing so. Which means that the AhS can't be used as a ra'ayah, because those who disagree will simply say he *obviously* couldn't have meant it. But the idea that communal policy halakhah should follow the NIH (or your country's equivalent) recommendations because the alternative is chaos appears compelling. Assuming the poseiq things the gov't is being honest. : In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael : Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to : listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees : and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita... Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on their audience. Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently includes conflicting laws. : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo sasur cannot apply. Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 : R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to : explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim : d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do : the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that : whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we : keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. : : This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I : referenced who explains the Ramabam.... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 min. in). As is my norm, I add bits here and there. ... But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, neither to the left nor to the right"? 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between Torah and rabbinic law. 2- [My own addition] R' Shimon Shkop allows us to say the same thing, 180deg off. In Shaarei Yosher, he asks the question of why a sefeiq sefeiqah (a doubt added upon a second doubt) is ruled leniently. The Rashba (Shu"t 1:401) holds it's a variant on the notion of relying on majority... Rav Shimon explains sefeiq sefeiqa on other grounds, following the Rambam. Who said that a doubt in Torah law must be ruled stringently? It wasn't the Torah, it is rabbinic! ... So, rather than the Ramban's limiting the specific prohibition to only cases where we are certain about the realia, it's possible that we could limit the rabbinic enactment of ruling stringently on Torah law to have only been made about the other 612 laws. With the same consequent rationale. 3- Rav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (Meshekh Chokhmah, Devarim 17:11): A Torahitic prohibition describes something that is inherently wrong. The universe is made such that combining meat and milk is a problem (metu'af, meshuqatz). A rabbinic prohibition lacks that reality. Chicken and milk isn't inherently damaging, it is that it leads to error through habit or accident. Therefore, one needn't the same care when dealing with rabbinic extension as when dealing with the damaging or refining thing itself. 4- Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Qunterus Divrei Soferim): Of course there is a reality to rabbinic statements. It is all revealed from the Creator, all the Ratzon Hashem yisbarakh (the Will of the Creator, blessed be He). The difference between a derabbanan and a de'oraisa is the explicitness. Therefore it is less sacred, and violation involves lesser realities. A difference of quantity, not quality. Rabbi Rakeffet links Rav Elchanan's position to his belief in da'as Torah; both imply a belief that there is revelation of Hashem's Will today through the rabbis. 5- Shulchan Arukh haRav [another addition not in the lecture]: In a rare case of where the Shulchan Arukh haRav discusses the purpose of a law rather than just codifying practice, he discusses the significance of yom tov sheini shel galiyos, the observance of a second day of Yom Tov outside of Israel. He explains that there is no time in the heavenly realms. The supernal "Pesach" is not associated with any particular time. Hashem made a connection between that Pesach and the 15th of Nissan, giving us a worldly manifestation within time. The SAhR continues that the 16th of Nissan is connected to the very same supernal Pesach. The seder on the 2nd night is a manifestation of the same metaphysical reality. What differs is who draws down the connection, not what it is we are connected to. Perhaps this is generalizable to rabbinic legislation in general. This would result in an opinion similar to Rav Elchanan's in that it gives a reality to rabbinic law, rather than their just being pragmatics for how to keep Torah law. However, the opinions are also quite different in that it makes the rabbinic legislator a metaphysical engineer, building the reality, rather than a conduit of Hashem's revelation of that reality. And, to continue R' Rakeffet's thought, Chassidic attachment to the Tzaddiq is not the same as the Yeshiva World's notion da'as Torah. 6- Seifer Me'iras Einayim (SM"A, Ch"M 67, #2): The berakhah that Hashem gives to those who keep shemittah , that they will have sufficient crops in the 6th year for the 6th, 7th and 8th years, is only when shemittah is mandatory by Torah law. (I.e. when the majority of the tribes are in their lands, and therefore there is a yoveil every 50th year.) Today, someone who keeps rabbinic shemittah gets no such guarantees. 7- Chazon Ish (Deshevi'is 18, #4): The blessing did apply during the 2nd Temple and after its destruction, for the heavenly court fulfills based on what's decreed down below. Rabbi Rakeffet identifies the SMA with the position of the Meshekh Chokhmah, and the Chazon Ish with R' Elchanan Wassermnn's. To my mind, it's possible that his position is more like the Shulchan Arukh haRav. However, this explains why the Chazon Ish was so willing to be stringent when it came to keeping shemittah. Had he felt that the observance didn't come with insurance from the A-lmighty, perhaps he would have ruled leniently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:31:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589CB8.8080308@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 04:01 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > in this documentary > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is > claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few > babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work > in the long run. That only makes sense for women who are planning a particular size of family, and use birth control the rest of the time. I don't see how it could possibly work for women who never use birth control, and whose "plan" is to have as many children as Hashem sends. How could having more than one at a time reduce the total number of pregnancies? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 16:18:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:18:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160608231854.GC16414@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:40:42PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? : : "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. : For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* : anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". Which is why it's intransitive. I included the "Li" in my quote because the prepositional phrase was part of my point. "Lekhahein" is not the verb of being a kohein or being made a kohein, but doing a kohein's job. Also, Yeshaiah 61:10, "kechasan yekhahein pe'eir". Even any case, I found this in the Seforno on the pasuq: And with this you will be a segulah from among them [referring to "vehyisem li segulah" in the previous pasuq]. Because you will be a "mamlekhes kohanim" to understand and teach to the entire human species that all will call in Hashem's name and to serve Him "with one shoulder"... Which not only makes my diqduq point, he clealy speaks of a duty to actively instruct the world -- ROS writes "lehoros lekhol hamin ha'enoshi". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:23:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:23:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: R' Zev Zero wrote: > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand experiences with the job, too. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:50:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:50:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Authorial Programs Message-ID: I've been leading a chaburah studying the Minchat Chinuch. It's quite interesting trying to figure out why he dives into some topics in detail and others he says would be too long, or this isn't the place to discuss detail or he's "not holding" in it right now. Makes me wonder how many mechabrim have a conscious, programmatic approach versus a subconscious approach or no unifying theme. Anyone aware of any analysis? 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 Wed Jun 8 22:30:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:30:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* > a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" > on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) > The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only an asmachta. > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not > : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be > what > : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara > that > : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. > If > : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... > > His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This > would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on > their audience. > > Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently > includes conflicting laws. > That is not the Meshech Chochmas point. His point is that we as human beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the action. > : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why > : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the > : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, > : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast > : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the > : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. > > This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs > to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo > sasur cannot apply. > This is not the Ran it is the meshech chochma explaining the Rambam > Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq > de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. > ... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps > shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore > came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. > > > R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of > Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 > min. in). As is my norm, > I add bits here and there. > ... > But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic > law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, > neither to the left nor to the right"? > > 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made > the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the > case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between > Torah and rabbinic law. > This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the opinion of the Ran. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 22:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:34:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger nisayon then Yosef faced? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:22:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" is only d'rabanan. In other words, if one has a legitimate safek about whether he did a d'Oraisa, then it is a smart idea and/or a rabbinic obligation to resolve that safek, but he is not required by the Torah to do so. I don't know if the above is correct, but if it is then it could be very relevant to the current discussion. For example, a safek d'rabanan might be a sort of "sfeik sfeika", and therefore go l'kula. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 07:31:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:31:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cholov Stam Outside of the US Message-ID: <1465482641540.74929@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/hezpyyn Q: I am planning a vacation to some foreign countries, and I assume that since I drink cholov stam, I can drink the milk in the countries I visit. I wanted to double-check with you, just in case. (A consumer's question) A: It's a good thing that you contacted us! The heter of cholov stam, which was explained in the previous installment of Halcha Yomis, only pertains to countries which have adequate dairy regulations. The OU's poskim have ruled that European Union nations and other countries with well-enforced dairy regulations qualify for the heter of cholov stam. In countries where such regulations are lacking or are poorly enforced, milk remains prohibited as cholov akum and requires on-site kashrus supervision in order to be permissible. To inquire about a specific destination please contact the OU via kosherq at ou.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:43:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AAB7.5050807@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 09:22 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" > is only d'rabanan. See Shev Shmaatsa at great length on this question. I don't remember his conclusion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 09:24:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:24:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160609162401.GB31542@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowlderized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Second, being gadol hador just makes it worse. Kol hagadol mechaveiro yitzro gadol heimenu. (An idea with way too much evidence in support in the newspapers. Not the drequency of the stories, it's still man-bites-dog. But the things religious people and other role models are caught doing that most of us aren't tempted to do....) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AA0E.60404@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 05:23 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Zero wrote: > > > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. > > I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. > > Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. > "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" > > Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand > experiences with the job, too. It was expected that all of Shevet Levi would devote themselves to learning, since they had nothing else to do, and since they got in that position in the first place mostly by dint of having already been the Torah-learning class in Mitzrayim (which role they got simply by staying in the beis medrash when everyone else ran out to do their civic duty) it was natural that they would continue. Thus it was expected that they would be prominent in the Sanhedrin ("uvasa el hacohanim haleviyim") and "yoru mishpatecha leyaacov". But there was no requirement on any individual Cohen or Levi to do so; they were given land for farming around each of their cities, and by the late 2nd bayis it appears that most cohanim, or at least a large proportion of them, were amei ha'aretz, and this did not make them less Cohanim. From this I conclude that Torah is not part of the job, but rather something to do when you're *not* on the job. The actual job of kehuna was a well-paid sinecure that Hashem gave them so they would have the time to do this other thing on their own, much as one is supposed to let a Talmid Chacham sell his goods first in the market, so he can get out of there and back to his "hobby". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:08:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:08:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Message-ID: <000001d1c250$098a3600$1c9ea200$@actcom.net.il> Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. She was not a stranger accosting him on the street, she was not a work colleague (with whom there are certain professional boundaries) nor was she the girl at the checkout counter. (Platonic relationships had not been invented yet-yes, I'm being sarcastic. There is probably no such thing as a truly platonic relationship between a straight man and a straight woman, which is why we are enjoined to be tznu'im. En apotropus le'arayot, remember?) His own wife had died a couple of months before (at the start of the barley harvest) which probably meant he was lonely and certainly meant that involvement with Rut would not have been an emotional betrayal of his wife. It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. It was highly unlikely that anyone would have known about a one-time liaison between them, so there would have been no hillul haShem, and Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 07:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:30:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, Some want to distinguish between different types of safek 1) safek in the :metziut" 2) safek in the din 3) machloket poskim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 10:25:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:25:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] temimos re: last day of shavuos Message-ID: <20160610172550.NHHT21830.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> I was doing some learning with a Kollel guy in a chabura about s'firas ha'omer, and I asked RSM's famous question, pitting "tosafos yom tov" vs the minhag that the Taz mentions of waiting until the end of the 49th day to count because of "temimos." The Rav thought it was a great question, and he took it back to his Rosh HaKollel, who, among other things asked: if this is such a good kashya, why does nobody even bring it up for 200 years after the Taz? Quite "coincidentally", he ran into a 32-page packet, just produced by BMG in Lakewood, that is on this very question. So, for your interest and/or Shavous study, see , or https://www.dropbox.com/s/ig0jxw2ye3xlpjy/%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99.pdf?dl=0 (you can download it) Good shabbos and a gutten yuntiff! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 13:36:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160610203636.GA30587@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:30:15PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the : Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, .... This was discussed earlier on this thread, right before RAM's question: Me: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#03 the other RMB: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#08 :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 03:24:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:24:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20160614102429.GA26569@aishdas.org> I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that post-modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever know to be objectively true. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs... I think post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. However, I can know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. So, the folk there pointed me to Rav Shagar (Rav Shimon Gershon Rosenberg), a DL postmodern baal machashavah. Along the way, someone mentioned R/Dr Alan Brill's blog post of notes he made to himself teaching R Shagar's works. or . To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true to Ayin. Given their advice, and the hopes that I could find common language with the post-modern among my own children, I spent part of the "3 day yom tov" with R' Shagar. Given my opening rejection in post-modernism, as well as a couple of comments made by Dr Brill, I must admit I may not have been fair. Perhaps one of his fans is lurking on list and wants to clear up wht I misunderstood. As R/Dr Brill put it "The very question" in the prior sentence, not quoted, "shows that Shagar is treating postmodernism as an ism to adopt rather than the current condition of our lives like the prior existential-psychological era that we did not choice but were embedded within." R Shagar builds a case for the condition of believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. An inability to believe that something is objectively true into the belief in of an objective Ayin. Help? 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 Tue Jun 14 14:10:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:10:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 16:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:00:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <598c06.3f27511.4491e6a3@aol.com> [1] From: Micha Berger via Avodah Subject: Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? [--R' Marty Bluke] I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowdlerized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org [2] From: Simi Peters via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. .... It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. ....Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters [3] From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah Subject: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth >>I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her?<<[--R' Marty Bluke] As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. .... So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love...lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana >>>>> [1] Over the years I too have wondered about the use of the word "margalosav" instead of "raglosav" and came to a similar conclusion to RMB's, that is, since "margolios" are pearls, the pasuk might be talking about the family jewels. However I did not assume that Rus /actually/ uncovered Boaz in that way but rather, that uncovering his feet was a way to hint to him that he should uncover something else -- not that night, but in due course. That he should act as her goel, that he should marry her and have children with her. [2] Yes, Boaz liked her and admired her but when Chazal say that the evening was a great nisayon for him they are clearly saying that on that night, he was attracted to her and had the desire and opportunity to sin. The nisayon was much more than "he didn't want to hurt her feelings." And she wasn't so "lonely and socially isolated"-- she could easily have married a much younger man, as Boaz says when he speaks of her great chessed in approaching him instead of going after the bachurim. [3] The idea that he was "deeply in love with her" is a stretch but yes, he clearly had feelings for her. Until that night I would say his feelings were mainly protective and paternal -- he always called her "biti, my daughter" -- but that night, under those circumstances, a yetzer hara was aroused that does not seem to have been there before. After all, months had passed and he had not suggested marriage, which was the very reason Naomi resorted to such an unconventional strategy. [4] I want to add one more point, which is that not all old men are the same. R' MBluke started this thread by asking why this should be such a nisayon when Boaz was "the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man." That the Gadol Hador could be overtaken by illicit desires we already know from many previous incidents involving Yehuda, Shimshon, Dovid Hamelech and others. As for old men, many lose desire as well as the ability to act on their desires, but we know that this was not the case with Boaz from the very fact that he did indeed father a child with Rus. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 15:49:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:30:47AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* :> a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" :> on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) : The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo : tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only : an asmachta. And later: :> 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made :> the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the :> case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between :> Torah and rabbinic law. : This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and : then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the : opinion of the Ran. What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling you why the pasuq "lo sasur" is not an azahara, and not a complete denial that the power to make a derabanan is from the Torah. As the Ramban puts it, shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on the pasuq. Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: :>: R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating :>: explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not :>: necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what :>: Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that :>: a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If :>: every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... ... : His point is that we as human : beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when : making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the : act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to : their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the : action. I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects their legislation. Or, ein hatzibur yalhol la'amod bam, which is the category all the MC's examples demonstrate. In either case, he talks about the difference between a deOraisa, where one might ch"v eat chazir because of a safeiq and a derabbanan where, as you put it "the value is in listening to their words". It is from that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. 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 Tue Jun 14 16:24:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:24:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160614232420.GB5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:23am CEST, R Arie Folger quoted Yechezqeil ben Buzi haKohein (44:23): : Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. : "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and : profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" RAYK (MiDevar Shor 16) writes that this is why we're called "beni bekhori Yisrael". The kehunah of the bekhor, to serve as either shaliach haMaqom to the family, or their shaliach before Him. See or . Also see Mal'akhei 2:7, for a similar definition of kehunah (WRT benei Aharon): Ki sifsei khohein yishmeru da'as veSorah yebaqshu mipihu.... RAYK's point is much like the LR's words when launchind the Noachide campaign: A particular task [is] to educate and to encourage the observance of the Seven Laws among all people. The religious tolerance of today, and the trend towards greater freedom, gives us the unique opportunity to enhance widespread observance of these laws. For it is by adherence to these laws, which are in and of themselves an expression of Divine goodness, that all humankind is united and bound by a common moral responsibility to our Creator. This unity promotes peace and harmony among all people, thereby achieving the ultimate good. As the Psalmist said: "How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 04:39:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:39:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon wrote: > So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was > deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it > only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his > wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world > to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at > his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 05:25:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:25:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I agree that "deeply in love" is probably be too much - but I think it is quite plausible that he was falling in love with her, whether he realized it before that night or not. It certainly makes it much easier to understand the nisayon if that is the case. And even if romantic love is much more emphasized in our time and culture than many others, I find it unlikely that it did not exist at all in Biblical times. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 13:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:44:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> I said that ?Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her.? This is not a claim that he was ?in love with her? (nusah 21st century) and is not the projection of a Western conception of Romantic love (nusah 14th century). Men and women have always been attracted to each other and loved each other which has, b?H, ensured the survival of the human race. Yitzhak avinu is described as loving Rivka imenu (after marriage); Yaakov avinu is described as loving Rahel imenu and Mikhal bat Shaul is described as loving David (in both cases before marriage. What is being described is an emotion, not an action.) And while Shir haShirim is allegorical, the allegory describes a profound, intense and sensual love. Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. Hazal do not find strange the idea that an old man might have sexual feeling and reactions. (Consider their description of David and Avishag in the presence of Batsheva.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From: Marty Bluke [mailto:marty.bluke at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:40 PM To: Ilana Elzufon Cc: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group ; Simi Peters Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon > wrote: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 23:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:39:55PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us : projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a : situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". When it comes to Yaaqov and Rachel, we find even more explicit description of a couple who who romantically in love. "Vaya'avod Yaaqov beRacheil 7 shanim, vayihyu be'einav kayamim achachdim be'ahavaso osahh". I think that academic claims of how much the human condition has changed over the millennia need to be checked against our belief that while TSBP evolves over time, halakhah does its redemptive work for generation after generation. Yes, many things have changed. The industrialist who relates to time with the linear instruments of a clock and day planner experiences something very different than the farmer's cycles of day and night and of annual seasons. Both of which are very different than the post-telecom experience of time which is dominated by events to respond to (phone, email, text/IM), more so than a preplanned schedule. But far more stays the same than would make for good PhD theses. 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 Jun 15 23:38:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:38:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. A ra'ayah for the Ramban is Yevamos 61a, which says that zenus (eg WRT marrying a kohein) is relations between two people who are not allowed to marry. Not all two people who aren't actually married. The Rambam (lav 355) cites the Sifra, Qedoshim 77. However, the Sifra inside distinguishes between being mechalel one's daughter lesheim zenus vs not lesheim zenus. So I don't get it. 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 Thu Jun 16 01:36:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:36:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They > try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak > metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". Truthfully, I never understood that whole story. Avraham was very well known generally and certainly by Avimelech and it was common knowledge that Avraham had a "miracle" son at the age of 100 but no daughters. How could this ruse have possible worked? Additionally, how could Yitzchak and Rivka have been meshamesh bayom where someone could see them? In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came after he married her and brought her into his tent. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Simi Peters wrote: > Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud > with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not > have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: >: The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >: any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >: malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. Even the Ramban who says that there is no technical issur d'oraysa, would probably declare this kind of behaviour is naval birshus hatorah and certainly not what the Gadol Hador should be doing. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 05:47:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:47:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gemara narrative Message-ID: <23bc4e6f392f4404bbfbd7d994e281a8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you are learning gemara and you come to a give and take where the hava amina seems strange (e.g. maakot 14a where the gemaras first assumes the rabbanan learn a din from lchaleik yatzah and ask where does R' Yitzchak learn it from. Gemara answers from a different pasuk and then asks why don't the rabbanan learn it from there. the answer is ein haci nami?! -- so why record the whole misattribution of reason, and how did they know/not know) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 01:47:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:47:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling > Ramban puts it, > shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah > aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma > lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav > As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power > to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on > the pasuq. > Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that > following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu > bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With your formulation that question still arises. > Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: ... >: His point is that we as human >: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when >: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the >: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to >: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the >: action. > I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el > Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects > their legislation. If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 08:10:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:10:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616151039.GF25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:47:01AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: :> As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power :> to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on :> the pasuq. :> Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that :> following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu :> bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. : The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on : lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With : your formulation that question still arises. With a mitzvah de'oraisa, oso lav is deOraisa. We do not cook meat with milk because of a derashah from a pasuq that is specifically about oso lav -- basar bechalav. With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav. (Earlier version had "bachaleiv imo", but mentioning bird milk seems too silly even for an imaginary pasuq.) I find the question cleanly -- and to my thinking, intuitively -- avoided. AISI, my read of the Ramban is an intuitive take on the chiluq. :> Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: : ... :>: His point is that we as human :>: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when :>: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the :>: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to :>: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the :>: action. :> I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el :> Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects :> their legislation. : If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. As I said, cart-and-horse. The causality is that the rejection is being offered "in response" (kevayakhol) to the law. Not that the law is to be rejected because they failed to respond to His Will. Yes, whether A causes B or B causes A, you still end up with both. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:07:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:07:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, : the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came : after he married her and brought her into his tent. I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" in differing ways. 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 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:12:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:12:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> What are the pragmatic reasons? In particular what happens when the reason for the derabbanan no longer exists. Is there a difference on the origin of the derabbanan? One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:58:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:58:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:12:28PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos :> as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans :> which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. : What are the pragmatic reasons? Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. OTOH, a gezeirah is pragmatic -- nothing happenms to you for vioolating it. The whole thing is a means of preventing ending up committing a real sin. Is there power to lighting a menorah of Chanukah, or did Chazal just have to pick /something/ to standardize how people fulfil the general deOraisa of commemorating a neis? Second day yom tov nowadays, does it connect to some supernal koakh, as the SA haRav says? Or is it a way to keep alive memory that the calendar ought to be al pi re'iyah? : In particular what happens when the reason : for the derabbanan no longer exists. The fact that the consumer is totally disconnected from shechitah and kashering nowadays might have rendered the gezeira of owf bechalav superfluous. People have little reason to confuse the rules of one with the other. But even if it's true that the reason stated in the gemara no longer exists, would anyone would say it is therefore no longer in force? Even though the motive is pragmatic., Is this baserd on the idea that we have to be chosheshim for unstated reasons and those may not be pragmatic? What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:10:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:10:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did sleep together. I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. Ben ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah > : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get > : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:07:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:07:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> On 06/16/2016 03:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >> : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >> : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. >> >> Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. > In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did > sleep together.I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they did more than that. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:18:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. > > One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual > damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of > that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or > psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite > taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. > If one assumes that the only problem is rebellion like the netivot then milk in poultry has no spiritual damage (the problem is gavra not cheftza) > > > : In particular what happens when the > reason > : for the derabbanan no longer exists. > > What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out > any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all > to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. > Not all takanot are to protect a deoraita. In any case the original question was why we are obligated by these takanot > > : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic > : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists > > Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention > anyway. > Not all kinyanim. More importantly not every monrtary takanah in shas has to do with kinyanim. There are loads of takanot for the good of commerce. In the change from an agragrian society to a business society to a high tech society much is no longer relevant -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 01:00:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:00:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:08 PM > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, >: the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came >: after he married her and brought her into his tent. > I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. > In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in > love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in > particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" > in differing ways. Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman (40 years old, according to Hazal). Rut is a lonely woman. She knows that she is a social pariah, looked upon with suspicion as a Moabite and not likely to bask in the social glow of Naomi's connections because Naomi abandoned them all during the famine and has very little social capital herself. This is why she tells Naomi that she will go gleaning where they will let her--she's expecting to be thrown out of some places. This is also part of the reason Boaz tells her to stay in his field--he knows the social climate of his town. And Naomi is extremely surprised that Rut has come back with so much grain; it means that someone has helped her--not something Naomi expected under the circumstances. Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). The halakha was still in dispute well into the lifetime of David (Yevamot). Tov (aka Ploni Almoni) is practically in a panic when he refuses the marriage to Rut--he wants the field, but no strings attached "pen ash'hit et nahalati." Only Boaz has the guts to champion Rut's cause because he has the authority to do so, has the social clout to do so, he cares about her, and he is touched by her trust in him and her courage in coming to speak to him at the goren. Rut's acceptance into society only comes with her marriage to Boaz and Naomi's rehabilitation with her neighbors only comes with the birth of Oved. [Email #2 -micha] I believe that 'margelotav' is like 'merashotav' (Bereshit 28:11). The 'mem' is not part of the shoresh and I don't think it is a pun. It may be an oblique reference to halitza and, by extension, to yibum, a delicate way of indicating that, while what Naomi wants for Rut is not technically yibum, it is the yibum-like 'hakamat shem be'nahala'. See the perush of the Malbim on the mitzvah of yibum, where he compares the mitzvah to the yibum-like story of Yehuda and Tamar on the one hand, and Rut and Boaz on the other. When a man says to a woman, "You could marry anybody. Why have you picked me?" that is a compliment, not necessarily a statement of fact. Part of what impresses Boaz about what Rut has done is that she is willing to marry an old man when that goes against the nature of things. As Hazal say on this pasuk, a woman would prefer to marry a young, poor man rather than an old, rich man (gold diggers aside). Rut has set aside her natural inclinations in order to do hesed for her mother-in-law. The words may also be read as an expression of Boaz's sense of gratitude and wonder in finding his one-in-a- million woman (and Rut is indeed exceptional) especially at a time in his life when he did not expect to marry again. When Boaz encounters Rut he has just gotten up from shiva for his wife. Either way, Boaz is not commenting on Rut's bountiful marriage prospects, which are pretty much non-existent (as I argued in the previous post.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 05:18:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:18:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: RnSP: Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as > the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her > mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite > and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because > it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly > idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). > Does Boaz's idealism extend to not quite grasping how different his attitude towards Rut is from everyone else's? His response when she comes to the goren seems to indicate that he had assumed she had many marriage options from among the younger men. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:04:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:04:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> Message-ID: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. Ben On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > > It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same > bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they > did > more than that. > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:57:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> On 06/17/2016 09:04 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Ben > > On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> >> It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same >> bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they >> did more than that. > Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira > it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? Yes, exactly. > That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. No, it doesn't. It has no connection whatsoever to that machlokes, and I'm astonished that you see a connection. *Everyone* agrees that there is no issur mid'oraisa on a man and woman sharing a bed, even if she's *definitely* a niddah, let alone if it's only a possibility. Everyone agrees that nowadays it's assur mid'rabanan, even if she's only possibly a niddah. Everyone also agrees that nowadays there's an issur yichud even if she's definitely *not* a niddah. None of this has any connection to the machlokes about what level of issur is involved in an unmarried couple having sex. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 07:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 17 11:03:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! Message-ID: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise thought of on our own. He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: 1. A town has a single shochet. A younger shochet wants to move in to town with the latest "shochet" technology -- whatever that is. The point is that he thinks he can provide his services more efficiently and at less cost to the community. In this case, the gemara tells us (al pi this rav-writer) that the beis din of the town can decide that the town can't support the competition, and weigh the fact that the older shochet might be put out of business, etc. I.e., the beis din has a lot of room to enforce a non-competitive monopoly here. 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- competition that might provide a better product is more important than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. The point that this writer was making, again, is that this distinction is not something we might have thought on our own. I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 12:47:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 22:47:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of the wheat harvest.) So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters -----Original Message----- From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 5:13 PM To: Rn Simi Peters ; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Marty Bluke ; Rn Toby Katz Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 14:01:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:01:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> Message-ID: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same >> gezira. > > Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:39:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I'm wondering if you considered the possibility that "lo bashamayim hee" might teach us that their legislation IS His will, by definition. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 14:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:35:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom _______________________________________________ It's complex! Enjoy http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:23:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allen Gerstl via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 70 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 R' Sholom Simon wrote: > 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a > teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks > he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage > competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out > of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- > competition that might provide a better product is more important > than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. . . . > > I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they > all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! > > I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this > idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Please see http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html The above issue is discussed at about footnote 22 (about three quarters of the way down in the article) and the Gemorah cited is Baba Batra 21b-22a I recall a similar question coming before the late Rav Gedaliah Felder, the posek of Toronto and that he told a group of us participating in a shiur that he gave. He had ruled as above. KT Eliyahu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:17:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:17:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> On 06/18/2016 05:01 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >>> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. >> >> Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > > That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping > in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate > any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion > about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Sorry, you're contradicting the very Taz you're invoking. He says *explicitly* that the issue he's discussing is being in the same bed, not anything else. Because as we all know it's forbidden for a man to be in the same bed as a niddah, even if they don't touch each other. And *that* is the question the Taz asks about Boaz and Ruth. If she was a niddah then how could they be in the same bed? And he answers that the gezera had not yet been made, so she wasn't a niddah. The same answer explains how Yehuda and Tamar could have sex; the gezera that would make her a niddah hadn't yet been enacted. The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything more into it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:03:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:03:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I believe it's a Chazon Ish. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > thought of on our own. > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:45:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: <20160619034555.GA2854@aishdas.org> Anyone interested in our perrennial about minhag avos and minhag hamaqom would likely be interested in R' David Brofsky's Teasers: ... Individual Customs The Torah teaches that in addition to the obligations and prohibitions imposed by the Torah, an individual has the ability to create personal obligations (Vayikra 5:4) or prohibitions (Bemidbar 30:3), known as nedarim and shevuot ... Family Customs As we shall see below, the Talmud teaches that one is also obligated to observe the customs of one's locality (minhag ha-makom), even if one leaves the place, until permanently relocating in another place. In addition to observing the custom of one's "place," is there a halakhically binding category of minhag avot, according to which one would be obligated to follow the customs of one's family? ... Local or Communal Customs As mentioned above, the Talmud (Pesachim 50a) teaches that one is obligated to observe the "minhag ha-makom", local custom. This obligation, as we shall see, is incumbent upon the residents of that place. Where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Passover until midday one may do [work]; where it is the custom not to do [work], one may not do [work]. ... Minhag and Pesak Halakhah In addition to being bound by local extra-halakhic customs, the Talmud teaches that if it is customary in a certain place to follow a specific halakhic view, that halakhic opinion becomes binding. For example, the Gemara[39] relates: ... Gut Voch! -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 Sun Jun 19 03:33:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:33:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and other differences between biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. <> what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to protect deoraisa laws. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 02:25:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 12:25:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> References: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:27 AM, wrote: > > > In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field > until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three > months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer > until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..* > That raises a whole other set of questions, namely when and how was Rus misgayer? Rashi at the beginning of the Megila claims that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women and Rus was only megayer later. Others claim that it can't be that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women so it must be that they were megayer them. The Bach for example states that Rus was megayer to marry at the beginning and then later was megayer a second time lshem shamayim. R' Shternbuch in Moadim Uzmanim claims that they were minors and therefore when they came of age could be moche and therefore Rus was megayer a second time (ayen sham). Therefore it is pretty difficult to tie the 3 months into the geirus. In any case the din of waiting 3 months is a din drabbanan of havchana, that you should be able to tell the difference between a child conceived as a non-Jew versus a child conceived as a Jew. For all we know this din drabbanan had not yet been formulated in the days of Boaz and therefore is irrelevant. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 21:27:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:27:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> In a message dated 6/18/2016 3:48:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, familyp2 at actcom.net.il writes: So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters >>>> In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:16:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:16:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160619121630.GC24863@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:47:45PM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley : harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they : won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end : of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of : the wheat harvest.) ... I thought "ad kelos se'ir hase'orim uqetzir hachitim" referred to the end of the overlap time. Which is how I got such a tight estimate. You appear to be reading it "until the end of the barley harvest, [and then beyond, until] the end of the wheat harvest." Which, despite needing the bracketed insertion, is quite plausible. But not the assumption I had been working with. In any case, even in a matter of months, we would still be talking about romantic love. To my mind, any couple in love before the love that that grows out of building a life together are experiencing romantic love. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:27:47AM -0400, RnTK wrote: : In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field : until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months : because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she : can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) The harvest season isn't three months, even according to RnSP's understanding of the pasuq. And that taqanah derabbanan almost certainly didn't exist yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160619120740.GB24863@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 01:33:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to :> obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH :> said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav : : The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and : other differences between : biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and : milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. At this point our topic is broader than that. We are back one step at whether lo sasur is a derashah or an asmachta. Yes, if every derabbanan is "lo sasur", then we need to ask about safeiq derabbanan lequlah. But if not, what is the source of their authority-- REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" Which then raised the question of whether following chakhamim actually is living according to the design of the world, as REW holds, or :> What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out :> any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all :> to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to : protect deoraisa laws. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. 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 Sun Jun 19 05:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:37:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:21:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> Message-ID: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing before marrying a woman. When people get married, they don't just sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Ben On 6/19/2016 5:17 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth > did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything > more into it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: < What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. > I am not claiming anything metaphysical. It just seems to me that not all rabbinical decrees are to help a deoraisa. I am certainly not baki enough to go through every rabbinical law but certainly some others include eruvin, most importantly almost all berachot, davening (certainly according to those that disagree with Rambam), shevat brachot. As I said before there are loads of decrees in monetary matters that are not just nezikin including prozbul, takanat hashuk, bar metzra. Again I would have to review the 3 Babas to come up with a more detailed list. Even in hilchot shabbat/yomtov we have candle lighting and other aspects of oneg, much of the seder, -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 21:15:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> <576766B2.50408@sero.name> Message-ID: <57676DE5.2000701@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 11:44 PM, I wrote: > On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the >> halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing >> before marrying a woman. > > There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. I just realised my meaning may not have been completely plain. What I meant by this is that they can have a chuppas niddah. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 20:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the > halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing > before marrying a woman. There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. The halacha in question is that when a woman agrees to get married she is presumed to have become a niddah, and must therefore count 7 days like any niddah. (Note that it's not the proposal that triggers this, nor is it her verbal acceptance, but her internal decision to accept it.) The Taz quotes the Maggid Mishneh that this is midrabanan, and says that this explains two problems we would have if it were mid'oraisa. One is Yehuda and Tamar: *not* how they could have sex, but how she could have told him that she was tehora, when by definition she has just become temeiah. The second was Boaz and Ruth: how they could have slept in the same bed. He says this *explicitly* so I don't understand how anyone can possibly misunderstand it. > When people get married, they don't just > sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and > finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Again, you are contradicting the very Taz you are quoting. He says in so many words that the problem we would have with Boaz and Ruth, if this halacha were mid'oraisa, is that she entered his bed. How can you claim that's not his concern, when he says it is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 11:42:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160620184259.GC12092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:37:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" : which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa I think quite the reverse. His saying that we follow the rabbis because not heading their advice would be stupid does not actually make the derabbanan mandatory. And I still think the Ramban is saying that the power of chazal to legislate is from lo sasur, but that does not elevate the product of their legislation to deOraisa. Thus his repeated reference to "zeh halav" in distinction to "'lo sasur' keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah". This makes a strong contrast to R' Mesamyah's position, "sheyeish bikhlal lav de-'lo sasur' kol mah shhu midivrei chakhamim..." One might employ parallel logic to REW's shitah, if it proves necessary. Remember that the Ramban's central problem isn't the same as the one which led us to this discussion. He is defending the idea that "lo sasur" is one of the 613, but (unlike the Behag) the particular mitzvos derabbanan are not each counted among them. Safeiq derabbanan lequlah is tangential to his main point, and more noted than explained. Also, I repeatedly contrasted the Meshekh Chokhmah's position (Devarim 17:11), that mitzvos derabbanan are "pragmatic", meaning the iqar is obedience, as opposed to conforming to Retzon Hashem, which I characterized as having metaphysical effect - or avoiding negtive effects. And since they're about obedience, borderline cases like safeiq derabbanan which are not rebellious can be meiqil, we do not have to worry about spiritual damage. If the mitzvah had inherent value aside from obedience, safeiq derabbanan lequlah would be a license to play Russian Roullete. I realized Retzon Hashem could also be framed less mystically in terms of desired ethics / relationship with Him, whether an asei to foster them or a lav to avoid flaws (a more rationalistic take on spiritual damage that is probably describing the same thing). Values and virtues. And in this formulation, there is no clear line between laws that Chazal would set up to implement a general deOraisa din (eg pirsumei nisa and ner Chanukah) and laws that implement His values. The broader mitzvos get kind of mussar-y / valu-ish. Like ve'asisa hayashar vehatov. On a related topic, 20 agurot from AhS Yomi. YD 201:206 (there are 218 se'ifim in the siman). There is a question whether a miqvah where most of the water is mayim she'uvim is pasul deOraisa or derabannan, or if even a miqvah that is entirely mayim she'uvim is "only" pasul miderabbanan. 3 positions: pasul deOraisa at rov, pasul deOraisa when there is entirely she'uvim, or never pasul deOraisa. The pesul derabbnan starts at 3 log is they were poured in before the 40 se'ah were complete; rov otherwise -- unless rov is deOraisa The Toras Kohanim learns the pesul of mayim she'uvim from "akh ma'yan uvor miqeih mayim" just as a maayan is made by G-d, so must the gathered water of a miqvah. But it is possible that this is an asmachta, or that it's a derashah about using actual tamei keilim but generalizing to she'uvim is asmachta, or... (See se'if 17) Now the relevant bit. In se'if 210, the AhS opines (nir'eh LAD) that because there is an asmachta, we cannot simply say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Thus ruling out the Rambam's idea that asmachtos are just mnemonic and polemic tools; he is saying they actually change the authority of the derabbanan. And if could change whether the iqar is obedience, limiting that possibility only to dinim derabbanan that have no asmachtos. IFF RYME buys into that idea at all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 08:31:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:31:48 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ie the current issue is about one who has specifically violated tora laws related to even haezer related issues. i wonder if crimes against secular governments would fall under the same type of reasoning , which as i understand , is only due to a 'bizayon hatora' . it would seem that any type of crime might fit that bill.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 12:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:45:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: , <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ------------------------------------ "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). 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 Mon Jun 20 13:57:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:57:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=24398 r reuven feinstein [around minute 35 ] responds on this tora umesora Q and A on how the haredi teacher should deal with Hallel on YH. thiswil presumably be more of a bedieved, since lechatchila schools that celebrate YH shouldn't have to rely on teachers that don't on there faculty, and increasingly may not need to.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 15:10:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:10:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> References: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160620221046.GA32539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:45:55PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is : not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). R' Shimon Shkop discusses this gemara near the end of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher. Leshitaso, there is a difference between a rebbe from whom "yevaqeish Torah mipihu" and learning from someone else, who could even be an Acher. But to my mind it is worth knowing and contemplating what our Sages said on Chagiga folio 15b. How could Rabbi Meir receive Torah from the mouth of Acheir [the former Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya, after he became a heretic]. Doesn't Rabba bar bar Chana quote R' Yochanan [in Chagiga as saying] "What does it mean when it says 'For the kohein's lips should keep knowledge; they should see Torah from his lips, for he is the angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts" (Malachi 2:7)? If the rav is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts, seek Torah from his mouth. And if not, do not seek Torah from his mouth." And the Talmud concludes, "There is no question this [Rabbi Meir studying under Acheir] is with someone great, this [the verse] is of someone of smaller stature." It is worth understanding according to this how Rabbi Yochanan spoke without elaboration, since he speaks only of the smaller statured, not the greats. One may say that we should be exacting in that Rabbi Yochanan said, "seek Torah from his mouth" and not "learn from him". For in truth, one who learns from his peer does not learn from the mouth of the person who is teaching him, but listens and weighs on the scales of his mind, and then he understands the concept. This is not learning "from the mouth of" his teacher, but from the mind of the teacher. "Torah from the mouth" is only considered accepting the concepts as he heard them, with no criticism. And it was by this idea that Rabbi Yochanan spoke about accepting Torah from the mouth [i.e. uncritically] only if the rabbi is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts. And according to this, in Rabbi Yochanan's words is hinted a distinction between who is of smaller stature and who is great. The one of smaller stature will learn Torah from the mouth, for he is unable to decide what to draw near and want to keep away. Whereas a person of great stature who has the ability to decide [critically] does not learn Torah from [someone else's] mouth. Similarly, it's appropriate to alert anyone who contemplates the books of acharonim that they should not "learn Torah from their mouths", they shouldn't make a fundamental out of everything said in their words before they explore well those words. Something similar to a reminder of this idea can be learned from what the gemara says in Bava Metzia, chapter "One Who Hires Workers" [85b]. Rabbi Chiya said, "I made it so that the Torah would not be forgotten from Israel." It explains there that he would plant linen, spread out nets [made of tat linen, thereby] hunt deer, made parchment [of their hides], and wrote [on them] chumash texts. This hints that whatever is in our power to prepare from the beginning of the Torah, it is incumbent on us to do ourselves, according to the ability that was inherited to us to explore and understand. And not to rely on the words of the gedolim who preceded us. 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 Tue Jun 21 02:57:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Potential Role of Orthodox Judaism in a "Fractured Republic" Message-ID: <20160621095708.GA20821@aishdas.org> [Rabbi] "Meir Soloveichik on Yuval Levin's 'The Fractured Republic'" or https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/meir-soloveichik-yuval-levins-fractured-republic ... Levin is undoubtedly correct about the state of American religion, both in diagnosis and prescription, and reading his book has made me more convinced that it is at this moment that American Orthodox Judaism may have found a unique calling. As Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik has pointed out, religious Jews have always sought to embody Abraham's identification of himself in the Bible as a ger vetoshav--a stranger and a neighbor, aware of what makes one different while engaging the world and, like Abraham in Canaan, speaking candidly and eloquently about why they are different. Last summer, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who is also a devout Christian, struck by how so many traditionalists feel that they now live in a culture not welcoming to them... As I argued in a recent symposium in Mosaic, the Jewish example can lead faith communities in a joint project to safeguard an America that will allow all of us to be "strangers and neighbors" --to fight for our religious freedom and distinctiveness, while also articulating a conservative vision of the American idea--and thereby illustrating how traditionalists can, in Levin's words, "live out their faiths and their ways in the world." 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 Tue Jun 21 14:13:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:13:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: <20160621211321.GA8586@aishdas.org> RGS posted a link to on Torah Musings: Jewish Action HALACHAH AND THE FALLEN RABBI: Q & A WITH RABBI HERSHEL SCHACHTER JA Mag | June 4, 2015 in Jewish Law By Avrohom Gordimer ... Jewish Action: Can one still follow the piskei halachah of a fallen rabbi? Rabbi Schachter: No. The pasuk in Navi (Malachi 2:7), as expounded by the gemara (Moed Katan 17a), says that a Torah teacher must be sinless and righteous like a malach (angel). According to the Torah, we only follow a rabbi's ruling if he properly models Torah behavior. If he is a ba'al aveirah, if he knowingly violates Biblical or rabbinic laws, he is not qualified to teach and render halachic rulings. When members of the public become aware of his improper behavior, they may no longer rely on his judgment for any rulings, unless it can be verified that such rulings were rendered before the rabbi's sinful conduct began. Since it is often not possible to ascertain when these rulings were rendered, one should ask another rabbi for a new pesak. Although people use [Marcus] Jastrow's [Aramaic] dictionary [for Talmudic and Midrashic terminology], and I was told that Jastrow was not Orthodox, that is different because that is an issue of translation, not pesak (halachic adjudication). For a pesak, a rabbi needs to consider all issues before him, and weigh and evaluate them. It is very different than mere translation. To issue halachic rulings, one must be part of the chachmei haMesorah (Torah scholars who follow the Torah's traditions). A rabbi who sins, especially if he commits a crime, is certainly not in this category. JA: What does one do with the sefarim written by such a rabbi? RS: They should not be used. Since his sefarim include his ideas and rulings, they fit into the prohibition against studying Torah from someone who is unfit due to his improper behavior. Any time someone writes a sefer, he fleshes out and resolves apparently contradictory passages. This is called being machria--providing one's own resolutions in Torah study. The type of person we are discussing is not qualified to be machria and, therefore, his sefarim cannot be used. If it can be verified that the sefarim and the halachic rulings were issued before this person's sinful behavior began, only then can they be relied upon and quoted. JA: Can we/should we continue to cite divrei Torah in his name? RS: We are not allowed to do so. The gemara (Avodah Zarah 35b) says that if a rabbi violates halachah, one cannot say divrei Torah in his name. The statements found in the Talmud in the name of Elisha Ben Abuya were made when he was still committed to Torah observance and belief (see Tosafot, Sotah 12b). If it would appear that the books and articles of the fallen rabbi were written before he began his sinful behavior, they may be used. ... This follows something we've noticed about RHS's position in the past. He holds that pesaq involves the poseiq's full Weltenschaung. To the extent that someone should be looking to posqim from his own camp in particular. >From Kol haMevaser (a school machashav newspaper from YU), 2010, by "Staff" http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-rabbi-hershel-schachter An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter ... Who is qualified to give a pesak Halakhah (halakhic ruling)? What makes his ruling binding upon a large group of people? ... A person has to have a strong tradition in Torah logic. Common sense has its own system of logic and so does Halachah. And to know Talmudic, halachic logic, you have to be learned in all areas of Torah. A posek cannot "specialize" in one area of Halachah alone. In order to be an expert in medical Halachah, you have to know Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohoros, because everything in Halachah is interconnected and interrelated. ... Which characteristics should a person look for when choosing a personal/family posek? Is it appropriate to choose one posek for one area of Halakhah and another for a different area? Is it problematic, halakhically or otherwise, for someone to ask she'eilot to a rabbi other than the leader of his or her shul/kehillah? The Mishnah says "aseh lecha rav" - you have to pick a rav to paskn all of your she'eilos. He has to first and foremost be very knowledgeable.... Second, he has to be humble. The Gemara says that we paskn like the Beis Hillel against the Beis Shammai, because, among other reasons, the Beis Hillel were more humble than the Beis Shammai... He also has to be an honest person. Sometimes you have a rabbi who is a politician and says one thing to one person and another thing to a different person, giving everyone the answer that he wants to hear. That is obviously inappropriate. Finally, he must be a yere Shamayim (God-fearer). The Gemara talks about why the pesakim of talmidei chachamim are binding and says that it is because "sod Hashem li-yere'av" - God gives the secrets of understanding the Torah to those who fear Him. Usually, we assume that the more learned one is, the more yir'as Shamayim he has. If, however, the rabbi of my choice is very learned but seems, unfortunately, to lack yir'as Shamayim, he is not ra'ui (worthy) to receive divine assistance in figuring out what the dinim are. And one off-topic teaser: What does it mean that koah de-hetteira adif (the power of permissibility is greater) and how does one apply that rule? How does this principle accord with concepts like ha-mahamir, tavo alav berakhah (blessing should descend upon the stringent) and yere Shamayim yetse yedei sheneihem (a God-fearer tries to fulfill both)? When, if ever, is it a good idea to take upon oneself a personal humra (stricture)? (REMT already posted the same answer here years ago...) Also, there is , which RET brought to the chevrah's attention in Feb 2014 and RAM transcribed parts of. But then we were talking about that shiur's primary subject -- "Da'as Torah - What are its Halachic Parameters in Non-Halachic Issues?" 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 Wed Jun 22 00:56:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:56:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: <> If I read ir correctly this is from 2008 (not that the halachot have changed). In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. Today with the abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 09:25:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:25:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes. Now that makes sense in a neoplatonic framework, but it needs a new foundation today. This is a particular issue because in Ish HaHalacha RYBS describes these same ideas as a priori categories, and a good Kantian would attribute a priori categories, not to an objective realm, but to the structure of human thought. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 12:54:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:54:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: , <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) Kol tuv Joel rich Sent from my iPad On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: I've been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 22 14:55:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:55:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: I read it. It?s very good, and it?s what prompted me to reread Uvikashtem Misham. It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious justification. The book you cited is RYB?s exposition of the Rambam?s views, but UM is his exposition of his own views. Those are the views that require justification. DR > On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > > You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: > aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan > > This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) > Kol tuv > Joel rich > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: > >> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. >> >> Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? >> >> David Riceman >> _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Jun 22 19:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:24:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <576B485F.8020001@sero.name> On 06/22/2016 05:55 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: > It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use > neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious > justification. Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they make testable claims that can be refuted? If you mean merely that it's no longer fashionable, why should that matter? We Jews have never let fashion dictate our philosophies, and why should we? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 03:29:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:29:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20160623102930.GA24267@aishdas.org> [I also address Zev's question in this post. If yuou are only interested in that, scrol down to the line of """"""...) On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:25:01PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes : from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes... From: http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia , where I complained more of the Rambam's placing knowledge as more central to human redemption than ethic. I also noted indication that RYBS understood the Rambam differently. I simply didn't understand how, given the citations I quoted. In "Text & Texture", the RCA blog, R' Alex Sztuden suggests answers from R' JB Soloveitchik's writings to questions given on R' Soloveitchik's 1936 final exam in Jewish Philosophy. (Thereby showing that these questions were ones R' Soloveitchik considered during much of his life.) The first question, which had two parts: I.a. What is the basic idea of the "Intellectualist Theory" of the religious act? In Halakhic Mind (41-43), the Rav distinguishes between 3 different views of emotional states (and by implication, of religious states): 1. Emotions are non-cognitive. They do not express any facts or statements about the world. In a footnote, the Rav cites Hume as a typical example of this view: "Hume denied the intentional character of our emotional experiences: `A passion is an original existence...and contains not any representative quality which renders it a copy of any other existence or modification. When I am angry, I am actually possessed with the passion, and in that emotion have no more a reference to any other object, than when I am thirsty, or sick or five feet tall...'" (116, footnote 49). 2. Emotions have a cognitive component. In fact, "every intentional act is implicitly a cognitive one...by way of simple illustration, the statement `I love my country' may be broken down into three components: I. There exists a country - predication; II. This object is worthy of my love - valuation; [and] III. I love my country - consummation of the act." (43). According to the Rav, I. ("There exists a country") is a statement of fact that is in effect contained by and in the emotion. Emotions are not irrational outpourings of the heart. They make claims about the world. 3. Emotions are cognitive, but they are confused ideas. This is the Intellectualist Theory of Emotions (and religious states). "Of course, the intellectualistic school, regarding the emotional and volitional activities as modi cogitandi, had to admit some relationship between them and the objective sphere. Owing, however to the contempt that philosophers and psychologists had for the emotional act which they considered an idea confusa..." b. What are the conclusions? Criticism. The intellectualist theory correctly perceived that emotions were cognitive, but incorrectly assumed that they were inferior forms of cognition, confused ideas. For the Rav, all psychic states are intentional, and religious acts therefore contain a cognitive component, subject to elaboration, refinement and critique on its own terms. In RYBS's understanding of the Rambam, the line I am making between perfection of virtue and perfetion of knowledge simply isn't there, or is at best blurry. Which is implied by the use of the word da'as in naming "hilkhos dei'os". And yet in my blog post, I have all that counterevidence. Like the beginning of the Moreh, where he talks about the need for moral and emotional perfection being a consequence of the eitz hada'as, inferior to the prior bechitah based on emes alone, or his ranking of human perfections at the close of the Moreh, his comparing Aristo to prophets, etc... In his interview with R/Dr Alan Brill, it appears that R/Dr Lawrence Kaplan, who produced the book built from RYBS's notes on the Moreh, doesn't see RYBS's take in the Rambam aither. From or https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/rav-soloveitchik-on-the-guide-of-the-perplexed-edited-by-lawrence-kaplan Hermann Cohen's modern reading of Maimonides as ethical and Platonic was instrumental in the 20th century return to Maimonides and especially Soloveitchik's understanding of Maimonides. This lectures in this volume show how Soloveitchik both used and differed with Cohen. ... Kaplan notes that Soloveitchik's readings of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas are "highly controversial" meaning that they are less confrontations with the texts of those thinkers and more the reception and rejection as found in early 20^th century thinkers. His German Professors considered idealism as superseding the classics and Russell considered science and positivism as superseding the ancient. For these works, Maimonides was relegated to the medieval bin. Soloveitchik was going to save the great eagle. ... For Soloveitchik concern for others and responsibility for fellows as hesed is the inclusion of the other in the cosmic vision. Just as God is inclusive of the world and knows the world because it is part of Him, the Talmud scholar knows about people through his universal understanding. Kaplan points out how this is completely the opposite of Jewish thinkers such as Levinas where you actually confront the other and through the face of a real other person gains moral obligation. (I am certain that Soloveitchik pantheistic-Idealist view of ethics will elicit some comments. ) ... 2) Could you elaborate on the claim that Maimonides considers Halakhah as secondary to philosophy? How does R. Soloveitchik counter this approach? This is an old objection to Maimonides. The claim is that Maimonides follows Aristotle in maintaining that knowledge is superior to morality, both moral virtue and moral action, and, furthermore, in arguing that only intellectual knowledge possesses intrinsic value, while morality possesses only instrumental worth, serving only as a steppingstone to attaining intellectual perfection. From this it would follow that Halakhah, dealing with action, is of lesser worth than science, and that Talmud Torah, that is, the study of Halakhah, is inferior to the study of the sciences. The Rav--inaccurately by the way--quotes Graetz as stating that Maimonides in the Guide "sneered at halakhic scholarship." The Rav counters this objection by claiming that Maimonides distinguishes between two stages of ethics: pre-theoretical ethics, ethical action that precedes knowledge of the universe and God, and post-theoretical ethics, ethical action that follows upon knowledge of the universe and God. Pre-theoretical ethics is indeed inferior to theory and purely instrumental; however, post-theoretical ethics is ethics as the imitation of God's divine attributes of action of Hesed (Loving Kindness), Mishpat, (Justice), and Tzedakah (Righteousness), the ethics referred to at the very end of the Guide, and this stage of ethics constitutes the individual's highest perfection. 3) It sounds as if here Soloveitchik is just following Hermann Cohen. The Rav, as he himself admits, takes the basic distinction between pre-theoretical ethics and post- theoretical ethics from Hermann Cohen, but his understanding of the imitation of the divine attributes of action involved in post-theoretical ethics differs from Cohen. Cohen, following Kant's thought, distinguishes sharply between practical and theoretical reason, ethics and the natural order, "is" and "ought." For Cohen, God's attributes of action do not belong to the realm of causality, but to that of purpose; they are not grounded in nature, but simply serve as models for human action. What Cohen keeps apart, the Rav--and here he is, in my view and the view of others, for example, Avi Ravitzky and Dov Schwartz, more faithful to the historical Maimonides--brings together. For the Rav, the main divine attribute of action is Hesed, God's abundant lovingkindness, His "practicing beneficence toward one who has no right" to such beneficence. The prime example of Hesed, for Maimonides, is the creation of the world. This act of creation is both an ethical act, whereby God freely wills the world into existence, and an ontological act, an overflow of divine being, whereby God brings the world into being by thinking it. However, the Rav goes beyond what Maimonides states explicitly by maintaining that the deepest meaning of God's Hesed is that he not only confers existence upon the world, but continuously sustains it by including the existence of reality as whole in His order of existence. 4) Is this the basis of Soloveitchik's claim that Maimonides is a pantheist? I think he means "panentheist". But here we drift from the topic, so I am ending my too-length quote. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:24:31PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited : neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they : make testable claims that can be refuted? The law of conservation of momentum. Aristo's entire metaphysics is tied to his notion in physics that objects move when they are given impetus, and continue moving until the impetus runs out. Imetus is imparted by intellects. Intellect is what brings something min hakoach el hapo'al. Thus the Rambam's belief that the spheres -- the spinning transparent shells of quintessence in which the heavenly objects are embedded -- were intellects. Because otherwise, they would have had to stop spinning by now. And his identification of mal'akhim with Aristotle's chain of intellects, making them the metaphysical forces behind natural events and the metaphysics by which Hashem's decisions reach the world. But now we replaced the spheres with orbits, mathematical non-entities, the product of momentum and the gravity of the bodied involved. So yes, because Philosophy included Natural Philosophy, and mataphysics wend hand-in-hand with Physics to create a single picture of how the world works, Aristotilian neo-Platonism like the Rambam's philosophy did make testable claims. And those were falsified. 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 Jun 23 03:33:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: Chazon Ish Emunah & Bitochon perek 3 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Gershon via Avodah wrote: > I believe it's a Chazon Ish. > On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah < > avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > > thought of on our own. > > > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: > ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 04:45:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:45:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How would you analyze the amount of "bother" you should go to in Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? 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 Thu Jun 23 08:17:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:17:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <576BFD98.9040206@sero.name> On 06/23/2016 07:45 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in > Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to > get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the > benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether > the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 12:19:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:19:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning Message-ID: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the bracha before Krias Shema. The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved only through learning Torah. Without limud haTorah, any feelings of longing that a person may have for the Jewish way of life as practiced in the old kehillos of the towns and villages of Europe do not represent the love or fear of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Rather, they are mostly nostalgic sentiments, somewhat like that which is expressed by the song "Mein Shtetele Belz. " They have no real connection with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Such a connection can be achieved only through limud ha Torah. One cannot fear or love something that is only an idea. By learning Torah, we recognize the reality of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and, consequently, can achieve both ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem. Love and fear are really contradicting relationships. One either fears another, or loves him. Love draws one to something, and fear repels one from it. We therefore ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this tefillah that in our relationship to Him, He allow us to have both sentiments, that of our love for Him, together with our fear of violating His will. This is the meaning of v'ychad levavainu? To "fear" HaKadosh Baruch Hu does not mean that one must constantly tremble before Him. Rather, it means that one is to be afraid to violate His will. This is similar to the fear a driver has of going through a red light, which does not mean that he sits in his car and trembles. On the contrary, he can be very relaxed, while at the same time being acutely aware of the danger to his life should he go through that red light. This "fear" actually makes driving very safe. Similarly, we ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu to unify our hearts, l'yachad. to love Him, while at the same time, to make us afraid of transgressing His will. YL __________________________ BTW, I highly recommend the sefer Rav Schwab on Prayer. It gives many insights into our davening that I was most certainly not aware of. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 13:56:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:56:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning In-Reply-To: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> References: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20160623205631.GA15414@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:19:51PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments : on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the : bracha before Krias Shema. : The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved : only through learning Torah... Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The first Tablets were made by G-d, like the body of writing as explained in the Torah. The latter Tablets were made by man [Moses], as it says "Carve for yourself two stone tablets." (Exodus 34:1) Tablets are things which cause standing and existence, that it's not "letters fluttering in the air." Since they were made by Hashem, they would stand eternally. But the second ones, which were man-made, only exist subject to conditions and constraints. The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was a symbol and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the Torah [since]. Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone Tablets", so too it is advice for all who receive the Torah. Each must prepare Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word of Hashem. According to his readiness in preparing the Tablets, so will be his ability to receive. If in the beginning or even any time after that his Tablets are ruined, then his Torah will not remain. This removes much of Moses' fear, because according to the value and greatness of the person in Awe/Fear of Hashem and in middos, which are the Tablet of his heart, this will be the measure by which heaven will give him acquisition of Torah. And if he falls from his level, by that amount he will forget his Torah, just as our sages said of a number of things that cause Torah to be forgotten. About this great concept our sages told us to explain the text at the conclusion of the Torah, "and all the great Awe Inspiring acts which Moses wrought before the eyes of all of Israel." (Devarim 34:12, the closing words of the Torah) This is in a long Litvisher tradition that yir'as Shamayim is a precondition t being able to learn. Not, as Rav Schwap is quoted here, a consequence. Although a positive feedback cycle is certainly a possibility. For example, from Nefesh haChaim 4:5: According to the vast arrangement of the silo of yir'ah that the person prepared for himself, it is through that arrangement that the grain of Torah will be able to enter and be protected within him, according to how much he strengthened his silo. It is [like] a father who divides grain for his sons. He divides and gives each one a measure of grain to match what the son's silo can hold, which he [the son] prepared beforehand. For even if the father wishes and his hand is open to give him more, the son cannot receive more since his silo is not big enough to hold more. So too the father cannot now give him more. And if the son did not prepare even a small silo, then also the father can not give him anything at all for he has no guarded place where it will remain with him. So too Hashem, may His name be blessed: His "Hand" is open, as it were, to constantly bestow every person according to his reward with much wisdom and extra understanding when it will be preserved by them and will be tied onto the slate of their hearts. Everything [is given] according to the volume of one's "silo." And if a person does not prepare even a small silo, which is that he does not, heaven forbid, have within him any yir'ah whatsoever for Him, may He be blessed, so too He, may He be blessed, will not bestow any wisdom at all, since it will not be preserved by him. For his Torah would become disgusting, heaven forbid, as our Rabbis, whose memories are a blessing, said. It is about this that the verse says, "the beginning of wisdom is yir'as Hashem," (Tehillim 111). This relates directly to another post of yours of quotes from RSoP. "Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah", thread at http://j.mp/28Q172y (or http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=R#RAV%20SHIMON%20SCHWAB%20ON%20WOMEN%20LEARNING%20TORAH ) In Feb you wrote: > The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. ... > A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim > because of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is > not the object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher > or scientist, but Torah is not philosophy or science. Torah is the way > Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us. > Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man, > can it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his yiras > Shamayim. Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud Torah, she > cannot utilize it as a means to increase her many ways of connection > to Hashem. And at some point I wrote: > I realize I do not have clarity on what RSS is referring to when he says > "yir'as Shamayim". > To the Ramchal is means by default yir'as hacheit, which in turn means > fear of doing the wrong thing because it's against His Will. (In contrast > to yir'as ha'onesh, fear of the sin's punishment, which is not real > yir'as Shamayim.) According to the Ramchal, also included in yir'ah is > yir'as haromemus. But those are all feelings. How could we make a blanket > statement ike "women do not learn to fear sinning or how awe-inspiring > G-d is by learning Torah"? (Whereas men can, or in True Scotsman style: > If a man didn't gain yir'as Shamayim, it wasn't *really* learning.) > So it seems to me RSS is speaking about something more specific. Perhaps > a relationship with ol mitzvos, which is why it is only generated by > a metzuvah ve'oseh performance. But even that would be iffy, because a > person can learn an emotional stance by imagining what it would be like > if... So that by learning, if the woman could empathetically imagine > what it would be like to be a man and compelled to learn as a mitzvah > in itself, wouldn't she still learn the yir'ah behind ol mitzvos? Now, that theory too has to be scrubbed. It looks like RSS is speakiong very speicifcally about fulfilling an obligation of talmud Torah. It's not a function of obligation in general (pg 300) nor of talmd Torah without the chiyuv (pg 274). So I REALLY have no clarity. 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 Fri Jun 24 02:14:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36431880-c73a-a5c8-e53d-25218ec972ef@zahav.net.il> There is also an ideological element to the reduced numbers. Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook strongly pressured the DL schools to not hire chareidi teachers (for obvious reasons). Ben On 6/22/2016 9:56 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. > Today with the > abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a > DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:17:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in Monsey. Ben On 6/23/2016 1:45 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in Eretz > Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get > birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit > of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah > is on the cohanim alone? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:01:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birkhat cohanim Message-ID: <> Certainly not a mitzvah in the formal sense of the word. However Rav Melamed explains that the chazzan (or someone in the congregation) calls out "cohanim" to signify that we wish to accept the blessing and only then can the cohanim begin see http://ph.yhb.org.il/02-20-07/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 05:20:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:20:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. > Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in > Monsey. > Ben The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. [Email #2. -micha] >> On 06/23/2016 07:45 Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? > Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > Zev The Haflaah among others. Listen here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/858947 Rabbi Ezra Schwartz-Duchening for non kohanim Kol tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 06:46:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576D399C.3070707@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 05:17 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. But only those who are in front of them, not those behind them. So I suppose any kohen, on any day, is only blessing half of Am Yisrael. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:12:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6deabf95-1f8d-0240-e958-c2518f9d8be0@zahav.net.il> On 6/24/2016 2:20 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one > stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. Because the people behind the cohenim are able to walk a couple of feet and choose not to whereas anyone else is considered anoos and therefore they are included in the bracha. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:17:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:17:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: >> How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in >> Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to >> get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the >> benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? >Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the kohanim. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:12:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 01:17 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >>Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > > The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer > Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the > kohanim. Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:10:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:10:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160624181048.GA19921@aishdas.org> In AhS yomi today, YD 240:34, RYME discusses the issur of listening to a parent who tells you to violate the din. One cannot discuss achei dokheh lav because the pasuq excludes such commands from a parent's authority. He ends: And memela, also in an issur derabbanan it is against the Torah. For HQBH commanded not to veer from anything the chakhamim say. So, those who say lo sasur is only an asmakhta for obeying a mitzvah derabbanan, do they say kibud av does include an order to violate a lave derabbanan? Or do they have a different sevara? :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:15:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160624181511.GB19921@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:54:09PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The : Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai : that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva See also AhS se'if 39, who says the same, but in more detail. The Lekhem Mishnah lmits the Machloqes to while the father is alive, saying that even the Rambam does not require KaVA of an evil parent fter their petirah. The Kesef Limits it to mishel ha'av, the son of an evil parent is not chayav lehachzir lo mishelo. And he believes Rashi explains the gemara in a manner consistent with the Tur's position. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:18:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev for a berakhah? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:22:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:22:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? > : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say > : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. > > Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev > for a berakhah? Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for women according to the BeHaG? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 01:54:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:54:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: R' Zev Sero asked: "Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed?" The Biur Halacha at the beginning of Siman 128 quotes from the Sefer Charedim that there is a mitzva on the tzibur to be blessed by the kohanim. The Haflaah in Kesubos 24b uses this Charedim to explain why it is prohibited for a non-Kohen to go up to duchen, He says that if a Yisrael goes up to duchess he is being mevatel his mitzva of receiving the beracha. See also the Minchas Chinuch 378 who quotes this Charedim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 25 11:05:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:05:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > explanation of the Rambam. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not > the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a > safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important . R. Avraham pointed out that problem of the authority of the rabbis is a basic problem and not just a difficulty with a Rambam and Ramban. The better the source of their authority the more it looks like a de-oraisa. The more one goes away from a de-oraisa the weaker their authority. His major answer is that every time there is a dichotomy the only way out is to find a third middle path. In general this replaces a binary decision by a continuum path. His standard example is the definition of bald. Someone who has one hair is obviously bald. It is also obvious that adding one hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. The conclusion by induction is that every one is bald. The answer to the riddle that the dichotomy of bald not-bald is not correct. Adding one more hair makes someone less bald. It is a continuum and not a binary. R Avraham (RMA) brought the Nesivos that also (or more correctly first) states that there are two types of violating a derabbanan. One is to rebel against the concept of derabbanan and that is lo tasur according to the Rambam (he also hinted that in the next shiur the Ramban will agree with the Rambam). OTOH if one violates the rabbanan rule "le-teavon" then it is a strictly rabbinical rule. Hence, Nesivot concludes that if one one violates a rabbanan "be-shogeg" one does not need kaparah. In essence he has done nothing wrong. The lo-tasur is only for rebellion and he has not rebelled. Note that practically there can't be rebellion and safek. In modern terms the netivot says that all rabbanan decrees are gavra and not cheftza. Eating meat and milk (cooked together) the mixture is prohibited. Eating chicken and milk cooked together there is nothing wrong with the mixture. It is rebelling against the chachamim to eat it on purpose (lo tasur) or rabbinic if eaten le-teavon. RMA pointed out that this again comes back to the problem of why to listen to the rabbis Note that the Rogachover holds that every mitzvat aseh is only gavra and not cheftza A second explanation was from the Rogatchover: The prohibition from the Torah only demands that we accept the authority of the rabbis. If someone accepts that the rabbis can make decrees but decides that nevertheless he can't/won't listen then there is no Torah prohibition. This leaves open the question how is it possible that one can accept the authority of the rabbis but still disagree with them. It seems to bring back the original question of what good is their authority if one need not listen, To explain this RMA brought a Tzlach. The Nodah BeYehuda states that sevara yields a de-oraisa only if their is a connecting pasuk. Thus killing someone to save oneself is a deoraisa based on sevara (everyones blood is equal). However when sevara creates a new category then it is only derabbanan. The classic example is berachot - eating without a bracha is LIKE stealing. So the rabbis based on this sevara required berachot. However, it is only a derabbanan since one is not actually stealing. (answers a question of the Pnei Yehoshua). Similarly for something to be a Torah law there has to be both a commandment and a content. In order for something to be a de-oraisa it needs BOTH a source and content. So violating shabbat is one prohibition even though there are many pesukim since the content is the same. OTOH "lav she-be-chlalot" has only one pasuk but many contents and so also there is no punishment. According to Rambam anything no explicit in the Torah has no punishment when learned from derashot. So the prohibition of "Lo Tasur" gives a generalization that there is a commandment to listen to the rabbis. The rabbis applied to this to various cases but this is no longer explicit in the pasuk and so no longer a de-oraisa. This is different than "lifne iver" where giving bad advice is an example of the pasuk and so from the Torah. In summary there are 3 types of derashot 1) examples not explicit in the pasuk - clasical example is neder. The Torah says one can't violate one's neder. Hoever the individual person decides the specific application 2) Asmachta (some meforshim) - just a help to memory. Ritva argues that some asmachtot are really the intention of the pasuk. However since it is only hinted it is a rabbanan and not a deoraisa i.e. there is content but no commandment. 3) Things learned indirectly from the pasuk there is a sevara (content) but no commandment. Finally RMA argues that finding a third/middle path is the only way out and so Ramban has to agree with Rambam. The arguments are more misunderstandings and semantics. Another example is Avelut. Rambam states explicitly that ivisiting the avel or making the kallah happy rabbinic. He the quotes the pasuk of "ve-ahavta le-reacha komecha" . This eems to be self-contradictory. The answer is the same as for "Lo Tasur". There is content but no explicit commandment and so it is rabbinic even though hinted in the pasuk. Someone who "loves" (not romantic) the Kallah but doesnt make her happy fulfills the Torah obligation but not the rabbinic one. Someone who makes her happy but doent "love" her fulfils the rabbinic command but not the Torah obligation. RMA then hinted to a wider application to general philosophical questions where one has observations and generalizations. How is it possible to generate a physical law (eg Maxwell's equations) when all we have are a finite number of observations. In other words are mathematical descriptions of nature inherent in nature or man-made. De-raisa is like observations we only have what is explicit. Derabbanan are generalizations. In both cases we need to find a middle/continuum path Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 08:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev >> for a berakhah? > Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? > In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for > women according to the BeHaG? In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: <576FFEA2.1070206@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 11:51 AM, elazar teitz wrote: > In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf > person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of > noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer > Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the > blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. Good distinction. Even awareness is presumably not necessary, since we bring babies to be blessed. But is this distinction really relevant to the question of whether to make a bracha? Where do we see that a bracha depends on a chiyuv to hear rather than merely to be present? Further question: is a bracha said on attending hakhel? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:13:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:13:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: <<< According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? >>> As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the latter than the former. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:34:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and then continues on the cruise. We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many days -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:32:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:32:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57709038.8010307@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:34 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for > someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every > day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a > difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and > then continues on the cruise. > > We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips > on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of > the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many > days How much more so. If one says it (without shem umalchus) every morning of the journey, even at a hotel where one might be staying for a day or two to rest, how much more so must one say it (again without shem umalchus) every morning if one is actually travelling at that very moment. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:30:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:30:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57708FB9.2050601@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:13 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be > blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: >> According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? > As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one > does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. > Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the > recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. > How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the > kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Our case is different, because once the cohen has answered the call and gone up to the duchan he can't change his mind. He's now obligated to bless. And if he hasn't done it yet that day then he has to do it anyway. > Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha > only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel > and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely > being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is > indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the > latter than the former. But we *do* have an obligation to say a bracha, which we are yotzei by listening to the baal tokeia's or baal korei's; if he has already been yotzei himself then he does *not* say the bracha again, and one of the listeners says it for everyone. Here, however, we are not yotzei with the cohanim's bracha, since it doesn't apply to us; we are not sanctified with Aharon's kedusha, and we were not commanded to bless but (according to this opinion) to be blessed. So if we're not yotzei their bracha why don't we say our own (or have the chazan say it for us)? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 02:10:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:10:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: In my original post I was too short. Therefore I will expand a little about tefillat haderech and my question 1) Rashi holds that tefillat haderech (THD) is requesting permission from Hashem and so can only be said within the first parsah. Bahag holds that THD is asking for protection and so can be said anytime up to a parsah before the end of the trip. Rosh and SA pasken like Behag. Rambam doesn't mention THD and meforshim try and explain why 2) Ashkenazim measure parsah as a distance (about 4km) even when using a car or plane. ROY translated parsah to a time of 72 minutes. 3) Kolbo says that one says THD only once a day even if one made a stop during the day (quoted in SA). Hence, MB says that if one is touring and stops every night in a hotel one says THD every morning with a bracha. Yalkut Yosef says that if one travels 40 minutes going to work and 40 minutes back they don't combine and one says THS without a bracha 4) Radvaz talks about an extended trip and says that even if one is not stopping in a "yishuv" and if if one is travelling all night he says THD every day but a bracha only on the first day. Pri Chadash disagrees says that one says THD only on the first day even if it is an extended trip MB says that if one makes a short stop then one should say THD the next morning without a bracha 5) As an aside RSZA paskens that one does not say THD traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as there are cities all along the way. Yalkut Yosef disagrees. RSZA also says that on a plane one should say THD shortly after the plane leaves the ground My question concerned travelling on a boat either several day journey without stops across the Atlantic or else a cruise with many stops in ports. According to the Pri Chadash one certainly doesn't say THD after the first day. However, even according to the Radvaz one might argue that there is no need to say THD after the first day since one always stays on the boat day and night and it is different than a caravan. Of course one can always say THD without a bracha but the question is whether one needs to. I have no surveys but in my limited experience people do not say THD every day on a cruise even without a bracha -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 06:17:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei halachot in monetary matters Message-ID: A new web site exists collecting piskei halachot in financial matters especially from eretz chemda courts in Israel currently 336 rulings with a search engine psakim.org -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 07:39:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:39:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Buying Sliced Watermelon Message-ID: <1467038393622.33144@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. I am preparing a picnic. Can I buy sliced watermelon from the supermarket? A. The Shach (YD 96:3) cites a concern that a knife often contains a fatty residue even after it has been washed or wiped with a rag. Therefore, if a non-kosher knife was used to cut kosher food, some of the residue on the knife would transfer to the food. Rama (96:1, 4) writes that with regards to fruit, we can assume that the manufacturer or processor has dedicated utensils. Even if the knife is not dedicated to cutting fruit, however, if large quantities of fruit are being cut or sliced, we can assume that whatever non-kosher residue was on the knife was removed when cutting the first few fruit, which are batel (nullified) in the majority of other fruit. One may, therefore, purchase cut watermelon in a supermarket or in a fruit store. The market would likely have dedicated utensils and in any event it is preparing large quantities of fruit. In a non-kosher restaurant or catered event, however, the fruit would not be permitted because the knives very likely are not dedicated and food preparation switches from one product to the next. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 13:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:55:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim Message-ID: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R' Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in "Ve ha-ish Moshe Anav m'od" from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Thanks, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 19:28:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim In-Reply-To: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> References: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> Message-ID: <5771E0DF.8050101@sero.name> On 06/27/2016 04:55 PM, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R? > Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. > > In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in ?Ve > ha-ish Moshe Anav m?od? from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Here you go: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19165&pgnum=207 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 28 03:03:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:03:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is dirt clean? Message-ID: If a Jew wants to eat bread, halacha requires a certain form of hand-washing, but that has nothing to do with this thread. There are also certain situations where halacha recognizes a certain *spiritual* uncleanliness, and requires a certain hand-washing to remedy it. Most (all?) of these situations are listed in S"A O"C 4:18, and include things like getting up from bed, exiting a bathroom, removing one's shoes, and others. It is noteworthy that this se'if begins with the words "These things require washing with water", as if to suggest that washing with other things would not be effective. Indeed, the Mishne Brurah #39 comments on the word "with water": > However, for tefilah - and certainly for learning Torah - > a mere cleaning is enough for any of these cases, as > noted below in se'if 22, in the case of one who gets up > from bed. And this is certainly [acceptable] if there is > no [water available]. However, removing the Ruach Raah > requires specifically water. ... But this thread isn't about those situations either. I am mentioning it only in order to clearly establish that there is yet another category of situations, namely the ones that the MB pointed to as being in Se'if 22. The Mechaber wrote there (S"A O"C 4:22): > If one has no water, he should wipe his hands on a > pebble or dirt or anything that cleans, and say the > bracha 'Al Nekiyus Yadayim'. This [procedure] is > effective for tefilah, but not to remove the ruach > raah which is on [the hands]. The Mechaber's phrase "anything that cleans", and his wording for the bracha in such cases, not to mention his comment about ruach raah at the end -- All these things make it abundantly clear that we are talking about *physical* cleanliness, as opposed to other kinds of cleanliness. And the Mechaber writes similarly in O"C 92:4, that prior to Tefilah, > One must wash his hands with water if he has some, and > if he doesn't have any [the Mechaber explains how far > one must go to obtain water]. But if he is worried that > he will pass the time limit for Tefilah, then he should > clean his hands with a pebble or dirt or anything that > cleans. My question is simple: Why is dirt in the category of "things which clean"? It seems to me that if I would rub my hands with dirt they would (almost always) be even dirtier afterwards than before. The only answer I can think of is that halacha considers dirt to be clean. Is it possible that the *only* uncleanliness that prohibits tefila are the things listed in OC 4:21 - touching covered parts of one's body, etc. (and perhaps other specific listings elsewhere) Here's a practical situation. Suppose someone is at work, and it is close to Mincha time. So he goes to the bathroom, exits, and does the best washing you can imagine, with whatever chumros you like. Then he realizes he has a bit more time until mincha, so he decides to go back to work, but with constant attention to being very careful not to scratch his head, or touch under his shirt, or any of the things that would require him to wash again before mincha. But his job is a butcher, and he will get his hands bloody. Or he is a painter or printer, and he'll get paint or ink on his hands. Or he is a farmer or construction worker, and he'll get actual earth on his hands. And now it is time for mincha. Are his hands halachically clean or dirty? If you tell me that they are dirty, how does it help to wipe his hands in the dirt? I have more questions on this topic, but I hope this will get the ball rolling. Thank you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:32:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rishon vs Acharon and other kelalei pesak Message-ID: <20160629193257.GA12798@aishdas.org> There are some interesting se'ifim toward the end of AhS YD 242 that touch on a number of our perennial topics. Se'ifin 58-62 discuss the din of whether a rav can pasqen on something that someone else already pasqened on, and if so, is a sho'el allowed to ask the second rav the self-same question. In 59 he opines (nir'eh LAD) that the Raavad, Ramban, Rashba, Rosh and Ran (AZ 7) all say the issue is not the kavod of the first talmid chakham, but because once he prohibits, chal alei chatichah de'isura [CACD]. Therefore, if the first TC made an error in a zil qeri bei rav matter, it's like someone who avoids a piece of shuman thinking it's cheilev, and there is no CACD. However, ther 2nd TC *may* say "I think it's allowed, but I will not permit something R' XYZ already prohibited." If a talmid chakham was matir and no one acted on it, another TC can be machmir. But if it was acted upon, he can't. I do not see an explanation why. Later we learn that a TC of an obviously higher caliber, or a moreh de'asra in his own town, can indeed overrule an earlier TC's ruling. Another interesting topic is 35 -- if acharonim disagree with a rishon whose opinion was available in their day, we follow the acharonim. If the rishon was not (eg Me'iri), we say that perhaps the acharonim would have ruledd differently had they seen it. But you cznnot rule against a ga'on. Yeish omerim you never hold like acharonim against rishonim, but yesh lehisyasheiv bazeh. However, if the rishon find one position compelling (yakhol lehachira) he may pasqen as he sees (except against geonim). 36: Just as it is assur to permit the prohibited, so too it is assur to prohibit the permitted. Even if there is no hefseid, or the item is owned by a non-Jew. However, safeiq and being chosheish for the opinoin of many rishonim is sufficient motive . According to the Shakh this is because "shelo ya'asu agudos agudos." In general the AhS refers to the Shakh's qunetrus on kelalei hapesaq a lot. Even though on a couple of things he holds like the Rama over the Shakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:46:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yanik Message-ID: <20160629194624.GA12037@aishdas.org> AhS YD 244 is about vehadarta penei zaqein -- both someone chronologically old (as long as he is not a rasha or an am ha'aretz who therefore ends up non-observant by ignorance), and a talmid chakham. In se'if 3 he says that a zaqein for the sake of this mitzvah would even include a TC who is a yaniq. Not a qatan. So what's a yaniq? Someone 17 or younger. Are there any mitzvos for which 17 yrs old is a significant age? The ony reference I could dream up is R' Elazar ben Azaria, who was 17, was supposed to be getting kavod (being nasi), and turned gray (keben shiv'im shanah) overnight. Problem is, he was 18 according to the Bavli; it's the Yerushalmi who has him becoming nasi at 16, and saying this quote at 17. And of cvourse the bigger problem is that there is no reason to turn the age REbA happened to be into a cutoff line. Can anyone think of something? 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 Thu Jun 30 02:10:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:10:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] meanings Message-ID: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or should you pick one? 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 Thu Jun 30 03:51:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:51:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma > before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities > with different meanings. (By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or > should you pick one? Another example in Hallel: ze hayom `asa Hashem, nagila venismha bo (is "bo" hayom or Hashem? Most translations seem to go for "hayom", but "veyyismehu becha Yisrael" in the kedushat hayom of 18 for regalim fits with "bo" meaning Hashem) My humble opinion: for pesukim, if there are two possibilities it's not by chance, and mikra lo yotze mipeshuto -- including all its peshatim. For tefilla, I'm not so sure, but I think you should probably pick one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:13:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:10:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma : before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities : with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off : or should you pick one? As per my answer to you at this week's wonderful Audio Roundup , I believe you *should* switch off. Poets make a point of layering on multiple meanings when they wish to convey a picture using al of them. I believe the point of ambiguity in tefillah is just so that you can emphasize different shades of meaning depending on what you want to way this particular time. (I accept tips for plugging a member's web site via Paypal. Contact me off-list. No, seriously, the biggest problem with RJR's Audio Roundup over on TM is that he tempts you with too many good shiurim for just one week of listening time.) There is a basic grammatical problem, two nouns, both the object of the sentence, with nothing indicating which is the primary object, which the secondary, nor anything connecting them into a single phrase that could be one object. Thanks to previous Avodah discussions, I have a list of ways to read "umasbia lekhol chai ratzon": - Pashut peshat [check your typical siddur translation] would be as though the pasuq read "umasbia' ritzon kol chai" -- leaving every desire satisfied. (Or maybe "umasbia lekhol chai es tetzono".) RYGB disliked this peshat because it's experimentally false. Many people die with unfulfilled desires. - Rav Schwab says that everyone is dependent on "yennem's" liking him for his parnassa.... Hashem provides this needed "ratzon". (RGD) RMPoppers suggests [on Mesorah] that "ratzon" was the very quality that HQBH is bequeathing, IIRC, something akin to granting "chein". - [T]he Malbim's pshat - Ratzon Hashem. (RYGB) [W]ould would work better if the pasuq read "... umasbia' lechol chei beratzon" .(me) - RAYK points out that without ratzon, goals and purposes for a person to persue, life is empty. So he too says that Hashem bestows ratzon -- but means it in the sense of having desire, not being desired/desirable. Hashem does us a tovah by giving us retzonos to pursue. Someone else noted the parallel in pereq 104:27-28 as an argument for what I called "pashut peshat": > Kulam alecha yesaberun / Eynai kol alecha yesabeiru > Lases ochlam b'ito / V'atah nosein lahem achlam b'ito > Titein lahem yilkotun. > Tiftach yadcha / Poseach es yadech > yisbe'un tov. / U'masbiya l'kol chay ratzon. > The whole string of preceding psukim in 104 refer to G-d's ability to > sustain the world in a very real and material way, not abstractions like > bestowing "razton". But I think that David haMelekh created the obscure phrasing because the real answer is "(E) All of the above". I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel beratzon..." works. When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase vehasheiv: - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, - ve'ishei Yisrael. Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to restore the BHMQ bfirst? Or do we pun on "ishei Yisrael" pretending it means "anshei Yisrael" but in a unique conjugation? But the question is how to find meaning in a pre-existing text under a new circumstance. Not multiuple layers of original intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:44:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:44:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9CWhenever_you_find_yourself_on_the_sid?= =?utf-8?q?e_of_the_majority=2C_it_is_time_to_reform_=28or_pause_and_refle?= =?utf-8?b?Y3QpLuKAnSAg4oCVIE1hcmsgVHdhaW4=?= Message-ID: We all know the minority report by Joshua and Caleb showers its praises on the land and counsels b?nai Yisroel to go up to it. The ten other ?spies? give a very negative report against the land and can see only giants, fortified cities and difficulties they feel are insurmountable. These ten men of small stature conclude their report with the following: ?And there we saw the giants (nephilim), the sons of the giant (Anak), from among the giants; And we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes and so we were in their sight. (Bamidbar 13:33). The Midrash states that at these words, God said: ?I have no objection to your saying, ?We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes,? but it is inappropriate if you say, ?and so were were in their sight.? How do you know how you appeared to them? How do you know if you did not appear to them to be angels?? (Midrash Bamidar Rabbah, XVL, II). This is a profound psychological insight. How many times we feel insignificant and think everyone else looks at us the same. Just because you feel inferior doesn?t mean you are. That?s the meaning of ?You?re your own worst enemy." Shabbat shalom. ri From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 12:50:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <577577ED.2090001@sero.name> On 06/30/2016 02:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. > Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to > say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) > > In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel > beratzon..." works. > > When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in > a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the > period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase > vehasheiv: > - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, > - ve'ishei Yisrael. > Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept > the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to > restore the BHMQ bfirst? I don't see the problem, or the "repurposing". The phrase means exactly what it always meant. The only change the bracha needed to adapt it to the new reality was the addition of a new request, to restore the avodah, before the request to accept our korbanos and tefillos. Once the new request is fulfilled, the next one won't be a problem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 06:57:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 09:57:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Navigating Kitchen Appliance Technology Message-ID: <20160401135835.593F217FAB8@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 07:39:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> Message-ID: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. -- 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 Fri Apr 1 10:44:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:44:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401174415.GA2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:28:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I think the real difference between the two cases is how deeply one must : dig to see the wires and the switches: In the floor mat all you'd need, I : guess, is to cut through a centimeter or two of rubber to see the wires, : while the motion detector would need a microscope and an engineering degree : just to understand what you're looking at. But even with the mat, no one : can actually see the electricity move simply as a result of standing on it. I think those two are different in kind. In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Let's say there was an unlit room at the end of a long hall, so there was no way to light it without chilul Shabbos. Would it be mutar to write in such a room? Or is writing assur, regardless of the situation? If a bug is born of eggs that are large enough to be visible, but happen to be hidden within uncut meat, is the maggot kosher? In the motion detector (or the fitbit), the change is not detectible by an unaided human, regardless of the situation. People cannot see the microscopic. (And yes, I realize that claim is true by definition of the word "microscopic"). The change is outside the realm of unaided human senses in principle, not in situation. If one looks through water through a microscope and finds water bears and other micrscopic bugs in it, does that water become treif? Is all tap water or distilled water in bottles that were open too long treif because one in theory would find such things in most water? (For a moment there I thought about mayim she-lanu, but then realized this would be a much more restrictive issur than that.) : There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, : but in my experience this idea is very new. Not even ten years old perhaps. Rav Dovid Lifshitz spoke about halakhah in general ignoring the microscopic some time between Sep 1984 and Jun 1986. The permissability of killing bugs that have no piryah verivyah on Shabbos (or of eating them) is miSinai. Or at least, as old as some pre-Chazal rav pasqened the deOraisa that way, since Chazal take it for granted. The real motive for saying halakhah only applies to the sensible is to find a new explanation for an old heter to avoid saying a din deOraisa is in error, even though the old explanation (abiogensis of these insects) was shown to be empirically false. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 10:57:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> References: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160401175728.GC2751@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 02:06:19AM -0400, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote: : And here's the link to the source sheet: : http://cdn.yutorah.org/materials/Source Sheet-510279.pdf RMT's discussion is of ex rays, and really focuses on whether the developing is koseiv. (Also, mesayeia, how often is it really needed, etc...) If anything, I would read him as assuming that the invisiable change to the film is mutar. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 11:18:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:18:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401181840.GD2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:01PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : Seems similar to an automatic watch, except for there being post-Shabbos : utility to the recorded unintentional-exercise-on-Shabbos data. Also, the automatic watch, becoause it is never allowed to run down, is never actually broken to need repairs. What melakhah would be involved, even if the winding were observable? (And I think in principle it is... one can see the spring and how tight it is.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 15:54:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:54:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: I wrote: > ... But even with the mat, no one can actually see the electricity > move simply as a result of standing on it. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think those two are different in kind. > > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible hypothetically, albeit not situationally? If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I missing something here? Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." I will concede that he clearly has some wiggle room there, and he doesn't specify why he is unsure, but I never thought that the invisibility of the electrons was an issue, since their power is so evident. Could it be that the tide has turned, and more poskim are looking at the electrons? I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 2 21:33:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, but in my experience this idea is very new. .... Let's say that there is a posek who rules leniently on these devices, and he bases his ruling on this principle that tiny things can be ignored. What precedent is there? What lenient rulings existed 25 or 50 years ago, based on that same principle? Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice and didn't mean to kill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:34:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: This is many ways similar to the use of electronic water meters on shabbos. The meter has no external display that changes and all it does on Shabbos is record how much water you are using. The Charedi poskim in israel have all assumed that it is absolutely forbidden. You can see the kol korehs here: http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2012/09/using-electronic-water-meters-on-shabbos.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:41:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I realise that I was a bit terse in my original question so I would like to expand on the halachic questions. After talking to 2 expert sofrim the story is as follows. There are 2 halachic problems with black on white (traditional retzuos): 1. Since the black is just painted on, the paint peels off leaving a part (even small) of the retzua that is not black. The MB is machmir that this will pasul the retzua 2. The KSA has a chumra that the sides of the retzuos should be black as well. The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the above 2 issues. 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't peel off or crack, it stays black 2. The sides are black as well. The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the gedolim today use black on black retzuos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 07:38:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 10:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57012B00.10604@sero.name> Another advantage of black-on-black: Al pi din only the loop that holds the bayis to your arm or head has to be top-side-out. The rest of the retzuah that goes around your arm or that hangs down past the kesher can face any way. But if you have the white showing, inevitably someone will come up to you tell you to turn it around or just turn it around themselves. With black-on-black this won't happen. -- 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 Sun Apr 3 13:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 22:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> References: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> Message-ID: <57017B0A.4040206@zahav.net.il> This could be different because even if you walk on grass there is no guarantee that you're going to kill anything. Whereas in today's digital world, you walk in various cities, you're going to activate some circuits somewhere. Ben On 4/3/2016 6:33 AM, via Avodah wrote: > I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always > been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you > might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice > and didn't mean to kill. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 13:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:02:27 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> References: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Message-ID: Date: Fri 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 EDT From: Zev Sero > Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? > Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? > If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. Oros Eilim Me'adamim are explained by the Yerushalmi to mean rams hit - whilst living - so as to produce bruising, which subsequently produced the 'red' skins, on being flayed.Rashi (ad loc.) appears to concede with that explanation.Lulei d'midtofino, I would suggest the redness was due to a tannery process, much as the old Yemenite Sifrei Torah were reddish [brown].(Note: Me'adamim is most probably a brownish red, as in Poroh Adumoh.) Dovid Rubin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 10:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar Message-ID: <20160403170927.74F6617FAFA@nexus.stevens.edu> Just like most other Bar Mitzvah bochurim, my son Mordechai Zev started donning his Tefillin a while before his actual Bar Mitzvah this past Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini, as part of his preparations. Yet, unlike most others who start donning Tefillin two or three months, or more commonly, one month prior to the actual 13th birthday, my son started wearing Tefillin 31 days before his Bar Mitzvah, an opinion not explicitly found in any early halachic codex. But to understand why, some background about Double Adars is in order... To understand why, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos! Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 03:17:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy Message-ID: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> By Dr Lawrence Fishman or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: In many academic circles, previous to the excavation of Khirbet Qeiyafa and its publication, scholars denied the entire notion of a centralized Jewish polity in the late 11th-early 9th centuries BCE. Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as some of the discoveries in ancient Jerusalem have shown that this view should be rejected.... Because of the [Bible's] presentation of [the history of this period] in quasi-mythic terms, it cannot be taken literally by historians. Yet properly evaluated it can and should contribute in broad outlines to the construction of a historical picture of our period.... The early kings of Israel rose to political power beginning with a limited territorial base later supplemented by military conquest. Saul's territory was that of the tribe of Benjamin. His son, Ishbaal (this name appears on an inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa), who ruled for a very brief period..., also claimed to rule over Ephraim, Gilead, the Jezreel [Valley], and Asher. David first ruled in the territory of Judah. His capital was in Hebron in the Judean Hills for seven years until he moved it to Jerusalem. The Bible attests to his beginning as a chieftain and traces the evolution and machinations that led to his kingship.... As David gained power and expanded from his Judean base, he ruled parts of what would later be considered Israel.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 04:13:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:13:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy In-Reply-To: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> References: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57039DBE.4010907@starways.net> Aside from his name being Schiffman, and not Fishman, I have to disagree with his identifications. The Iron II remains he's talking about are not from the United Monarchy. Rather, they are from the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement. And in fact, they *match* the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement, but do not in any way match the United Monarchy, which is why he had to give the caveat that: /The elimination of these more extreme, minimalist views of the period of the United Monarchy does not give us an excuse to adopt a simplistic or fundamentalist reading of the biblical historical accounts and the archaeological evidence. Rather, it calls upon us to ask how, when taken together, the age-old historical traditions of the Jewish people can be melded with archaeological evidence from the Land of Israel and evidence from surrounding cultures in the ancient Near East. Our challenge, therefore, is not to ask whether or not biblical accounts and archaeological evidence are true or not, but rather how, when taken together, the evidence available to us can allow us to reconstruct a sense of what the society was like that produced the biblical traditions that we have received.// / This is a roundabout way of saying that the remains don't match the biblical narrative, but we can, if we try really hard, kinda see how the remains were later enlarged into the biblical fantasy. He also says: /In the monarchic period a uniformity of architectural forms throughout Judah/Israel has been discovered... Architecturally the public city gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor are strikingly similar: the walls are very thick and feature casemates where people lived or that were used for storage... The uniformity of the features of the great public buildings in these cities suggests a royal administration./ Substituting Iron II for the incorrect "monarchic period", this is understandable, since the uniform architecture was the result of local governors from the same Assyrian empire. But of course, the architecture of Solomon was on a scale far above that of the Iron II buildings. Interestingly enough, the cities where these uniform city gates were found are, each of them, in the regional capitols of areas conquered by Assyria. He leaves off Lachish, which has the same gates, and which was the Assyrian capitol of their province of Judea in the time between their conquest of all Judea other than Jerusalem and their withdrawal after they were struck down before the gates of Jerusalem. Lisa On 4/5/2016 1:17 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > By Dr Lawrence Fishman > > or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 14:57:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:57:10 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 From: Marty Bluke via Avodah ... > The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are > made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time > and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an > additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the > above 2 issues. > 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't > peel off or crack, it stays black > 2. The sides are black as well. > The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the > traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't > the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the > gedolim today use black on black retzuos This is not so simple. It might be argued that the 'optional' addition of a glossy side is not so optional. Rashi says, the outside of the retsuos need to be the 'noy' [beauty]. In the old manner of painting - and not soaking - the retsuos, this was quite simple. The painted side represented the noy. Soaking the skins does not give a pleasant finished article. Thus, i would argue, the addition of a glossy side is imperative. A point that was missed is the opinion of the Arizal, that the retsuos of shel rosh should be black on both sides. (However, from previous argument it would appear that might entail a nice finish on both sides.) The objection that this new process is a chiddush is somewhat faulty. I possess retsuos of over 200 years. It is clear that the original method of manufacture was very different 200 years ago. The entire skin was not treated. Rather, strips were cut off and then painted. This enabled the sides to be painted as well. Thus, the entire way retsuos are manufactured nowadays represents a departure from tradition. The reason, perhaps, why gedolim may be reluctant on taking on this chumrah, is that it may be misconstrued as halacha. Dovid Rubin Your soul is a part of God, part of His Infinite Essence. You are beyond limit, estimation or assessment. Ever since creation, the world has been waiting for you. Since your soul realised itself, it has been waiting for its time to perform its unique tasks of improvement. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 06:27:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:27:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakheh ess shinnav Message-ID: <57050EC8.1010702@gmail.com> I got a laugh from Larry's responses: >From http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2016/04/05/weekly-digest-news-and-essays-in-and-out-of-orthodoxy-week-of-parshas-tazria-5776/ ...Dr. Steven Bayme, who has emerged recently as the primary spokesman for PORAT...validates Biblical Criticism even when it negates parts of the Torah.... Snippet: ''Did Moses actually write that Abraham pursued his foes until 'Dan' in order to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:14), or was the place name a later editorial insert to indicate what by then had become a well-known locale? Were there two ?Yairs? who each happened to have conquered 30 villages in the Bashan 200 years apart (Deut. 3:14; Judg. 10:3-4) or was this but one incident occurring later but inserted retrospectively into the Book of Numbers as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Bashan?'' =================== larry rothenberg April 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm Steve Bayme, 3000 years from now ? ''Were there really two presidents named Bush, a father and son, who both went to war with an Iraqi dictator named Saddam Hussein? or was this but one incident occurring later but added retrospectively into American history textbooks as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Iraq?'' ==================== Naftali April 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm In the offending ''snippet'' all Dr Bayme does is raise questions. Is the mere asking of questions now considered unOrthodox? in which case, what does an Orthodox Seder look like? -------------- larry April 5, 2016 at 3:46 pm The answer depends on whether you are a chacham or a rasha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:14:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chayav Livsumei In-Reply-To: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> References: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160406191405.GB5241@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : In the words of Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter in Torah Web on "Torah : and Nevuah" I found it at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rsch_tzav.html : In his commentary to the mishnayos (end of Sanhedrin), Rambam lists what : he considers are the thirteen principles of our faith. We believe in : prophecy. It is possible for G-d to communicate with man. We also believe : that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was on a higher level than that of : any of the other prophets. What does this mean? Is Rambam grading the : prophets? If Moshe Rabbeinu gets an A+, what does Micha get? And what : grade does Chavakuk deserve? : : No, this is not a matter of grading Moshe's prophecy. What Rambam means to : say is that the only prophet who was ever given mitzvos (with a binding : force for all future generations) was Moshe Rabbeinu. His was the only : prophecy that was on the level of Torah. I didn't get this paragraph. Because: 1- As it says further down: : Moshe Rabbeinu was the only prophet who was given what we technically : refer to as "mitzvos", commandments which are binding throughout all : the future generations, because they constitute the description of G-d's : essence, which is not subject to change. None of the prophets were ever : shown "the image of God", i.e., were never given "mitzvos". They were : only given a "hora'as sha'ah", of a temporary nature only... Well, if Moshe alone was shown the tzelem E-lokim (which is necessary to receive mitzvos), isn't that grading MRAH's above Micha or Chavaquq, who did not? Now if you're going to say that's the content of the nevu'ah, not the quality of navi (pe'ula, not gavra), the pasuq itself says, "Lo qam navi od beYisrael keMosheh, asher yeda'o H' Panim el panim." (Devarim 34:10) 2- The Rambam himself says that Moshe's nevu'ah was qualitatively unique. In the 7th ikar, the Rambam describes the "peh el peh" (Bamidbar 12:8) nevu'ah of Moshe as being unique in 4 ways: a- no intermediary -- nevu'ah direct from HQBH b- he didn't need to be asleep or in a trance c- it didn't cause him to weaken and shudder (c.f. Daniel 8:8-9, 16) d- Moshe could choose when he got nevu'ah; other nevi'im received when and if Hashem chose. In the Moreh 2:35, we find: ... For I must tell you that whatever I say here of prophecy refers exclusively to the form of the prophecy of all prophets before and after Moses. But as to the prophecy of Moses I will not discuss it in this work with one single word, whether directly or indirectly, because, in my opinion, the term prophet is applied to Moses and other men homonymously. A similar distinction, I think, must be made between the miracles wrought by Moses and those wrought by other prophets, for his signs are not of the same class as the miracles of other prophets... The word "nev'uah" is only used as a homonym -- it has a different meaning when used WRT Moshe than when we call anyone else a navi / nev'uah. This goes beyond grading Moshe an A+ and some other navi an A or less. That would be saying they are at different gradations on the same scale. What Moshe did wasn't nevu'ah as all in the same sense of the word. It was a different type of perception. See also Moreh 2:45, where he lists 11 gradations of nevu'ah -- all of which in the usual sense of the word. (Moshe's being to different to even be listed as a 12th.) The Rambam was far from afraid of ranking prophecy, if not prophets. But he does make a distinction between Moshe and the other nevi'im beyond who received mitzvos and who not. As I said, I don't think that's RHS's intent either, as can bee seen in the second snippet I left in this post. I just don't know what his intent is. 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 Wed Apr 6 13:26:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:26:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:28:26AM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : http://shuihaber.com/2016/03/31/the-arba-parshiyos/ ... : Rav Sperber explains that on the 5th Shabbos, they would then go back : to where they had left off. This seems to be the literal meaning of the : mishna that says: "on the fifth Shabbos, we resume reading like usual." As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also possible. The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a : 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year : cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the : Community in Eretz Yisroel. Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from EY than among Sepharadim. The question is when did Ashkenaz itself switch. It must have been centuries before the time in discussion in any case. Machzor Vitri (R' Simchah miVitrie -- a talmid of Rashi and the Ri's grandfather) discusss leiniing Bereishis on the 2nd day of Sheini Atzeres, the terms for Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis, and even the reshus for each. But it would be ironic if Ashkenaz became the bastion of Babylonian lening, spreading it to EY. I guess it's true: there is no one so vehement as the newly converted. : Lastly, there is an old minhag to say Yotzros and Krovos during the : Shabbos morning Tefilla... : This minhag became popular amongst the Chassidim... But I think most loyally maintained bvy Yekkes, due to the aforementioned ancient Ashkenazi attitude toward piut in general. : The Rema comments that the R'i, Rashba and the Tur all hold that there : is no issue with interrupting your regular tefilla for this, but if you : do not say the Yotzros it is still fine... (Note: change fn 10 to "OC 68:1".) The Rama takes it for granted that the minyan is saying them, "vekhein nohagin bekhol hameqomos le'amram". So even though he hold "vehameiqil ve'eino omeram lo hifsid" -- as long as you're with the tzibbur and not even learning during the piyut -- I am not sure he is actually advocating for skipping it. Ad RSH put it "it is still fine". I just wanted to point out that he would NOT permit what I myself do -- use the time to learn. "Ein le'adam lifrosh atzmo meihatzibur". He repeated this in 90:10, where he advocates saying the piyutim with the tzibbur. "Velo yifrosh min hatzibur afilu la'asoq bedivrei Torah". : The Minhag of the Chasam Sofer was not to recite the piyutim during : davening, rather he would sing them during the Shabbos or YomTov : seudah. The Mesora is that the Chasam Sofer learnt this from his rebbe : the Baal Hafla'ah who learnt it form the Mezritcher Maggid who learnt : it from the Baal Shem Tov... Whatever happened to the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah"? 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 Apr 6 13:58:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406205847.GE5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger responded: : > I think those two are different in kind. : : > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use : > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) : > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. : : Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible : hypothetically, albeit not situationally? We are comparing two ways of making the door open. If making the door open is not a halachic problem, then there is no contrast. I am saying that nothing physical happens to an electric eye or UV sensor to cause the motor to go on. However, with the mat, one is moving two metal plates together (or a conductive tape against a plate). Cut away the rubber, and you would see the circuit close. There is a visible cause and a visible effect. Even if part of the causality is only explainable by appeal to the quantum scale. (BTW, atoms are mostly vacuum. It's only quantum scale repulsion of electrons that fully explains why hitting a ball with a bat changes the course of the ball; why things don't just go through eachother.) ... : If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For : it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the : electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I : missing something here? It wouldn't be the motion of the electronc, even if they were macroscopic. You might as well prohibit flushing toilets and rolling marbles down a ramp, if one inherently prohibites the giving elecrons a chance to use their potential energy (voltage). All of the theories about why electricity is assur depend on the visible effects of the cercuit, or the visible making of a circuit, not the moving of current itself. (Except of course RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan even without a Sanhedrin.) : Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which : opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei. Also on that list: sparking, unless the motor's spin rate is based on the frequency of the AC current coming in. But PRDNL wouldn't help with a deOraisa. (RYE Spektor and ROY permit it for a derabbanan, the MB only for a double-derabbanan.) Water meters were mentioned. I posted about PRDNL anhd water meters in 2012 . Click on the subject line and see the thread. : Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe : Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone : on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the : electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur : d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." ... That's OC 4:84. Who doesn't talk about the invisible, but about electric power. "Vreo'in zeh bechush", although he means you can hear it from the loudspeaker. I do not see RMF saying that power that goes into results that in principle you cannot sense would be assur. : I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does : try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can : be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has : something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both : teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". : It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely : speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be : meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should : also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. But another part of the permissibility of speaking in the presence of someone with a hearing aid is that at times even with the hearing aid, the user doesn't hear anything, thus ruling out pesiq reishei, reducing it to davar she'ein miskavein. The problem I have with your "it sounds to me" is that it begs the question: Can there be havarah that can't be sensed? (Including: Can there be havarah if something burns below yad soledes bo?) Tir'u baTov! -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 Wed Apr 6 14:50:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between > Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the > other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also > possible. It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there are two. > The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read whichever sidra is next on the roster, but we are not back on track because we still have some of the four parshiyos coming up. Only on the shabbos after Hachodesh are we "back on track", at least until Pesach comes. >> This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a >> 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year >> cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the >> Community in Eretz Yisroel. This explanation is missing a major piece of the puzzle. It's not that the Baalei Tosfos had such enormous influence on Bnei EY that they induced them to change their minhag. They never had such an influence. Rather, the crusaders completely wiped out the Yishuv of EY. By the end of the 12th century there were essentially no Jews left; the only place minhag EY survived was at the EY shul in Cairo. Slowly EY began to be repopulated, mostly by Ashkenazi olim. When the Ramban arrived there was a small community in Akko (which was under Xian rule) but not even a minyan of Jews living in Y'm. Thus the new EY community that developed, and that the Sefardim found there when they came after 1492, was composed of European olim with European minhagim, including reading the Torah on the Bavli cycle. > Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of > the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that > Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from > EY than among Sepharadim. How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. -- 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 Apr 6 15:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:10:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read : whichever sidra is next on the roster... Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? ... :> Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of :> the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that :> Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from :> EY than among Sepharadim. : How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue : for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. Then why did Ashk start out triennial? Admittedly, it changed by Rashi's day, so "start out" was quite short, but still, there are records of debate about it. Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the siyum every third Shavuos.) Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were shorter. There are better indicators, but this period in Jewish History is more RRW's thing than mine. Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and finally Egypt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 15:22:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:22:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... > :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. > > : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we > : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read > : whichever sidra is next on the roster... > > Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" > for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track > but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. >> How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue >> for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. > Then why did Ashk start out triennial? I've never heard that it did. > Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. How so? > (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the > siyum every third Shavuos.) Sorry, I don't recall that. > Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that > died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were > shorter. Is there evidence for that, or is it just speculation? BTW Targum survived in some communities for some special readings, even after it stopped being used for the whole Torah. So it's possible that when and where Akdamos were written it was still done on Shavuos even if it wasn't the whole year. > Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and > finally Egypt. Again, is this established, or speculation derived from precisely the proposition that you are trying to derive from it? BTW I just came across another survival of ancient minhag EY: The kiddush Rosh Chodesh that is well-attested in EY in the first millennium (e.g. in Mas' Sofrim and in the list of differences between EY and Bavel) survived into the 13th century in the Minhag-EY shul in Fostat, but only on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Eventually minhag EY died out in Egypt too, but the idea of having a special seder Rosh Chodesh Nissan lived on, and is still practised by Egyptian Jews today, under the name "Seder al-Tawhid" (Seder Hayyichud). -- 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 Apr 6 15:29:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:29:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between >> Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the >> other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also >> possible. >> > > It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. > However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. > There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there > are two. There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and Hahodesh. There is also a mnemonic for the dates of the hafsakot according on the date of 1 Adar, "Zivdu: Zyah Bu Dad Ubyu" but I've never found it very useful because the mnemonic is such a tongue-twister that I can never remember it and end up working out the dates from scratch and reverse engineering the mnemonic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 17:59:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:22:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. : The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is : irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. Again, I am not insisting this implication is muchrach, but look at the mishnah (Megillah 3:4): RC Adar that falls out on Shabbos, we read P Sheqalim... On the 2nd, Zakhor On the 3rd, Parah Adumah On the 4th, "HaChodesh haZeh Lakhem" On the 5th, we return to the sequence... The Ran (quoted by Tosafos YT) only discussed "basheini" saying it's the 2nd week after Sheqalim or after the break described in the ellipses at the end of the first line of my "translation". :> Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. : How so? The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning of speach..." Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying he is prefacing. In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn bera H'..." 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 Wed Apr 6 18:10:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:10:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5705B370.3080401@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 08:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning > of speach..." > > Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into > referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY > beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying > he is prefacing. > > In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning > of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn > bera H'..." Why not a preface to the day's laining? -- 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 Apr 6 19:33:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:33:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger's posts are very well thought-out. I've reached the limits of my knowledge on this topic. I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? RMB wrote: > ... RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we > all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan > even without a Sanhedrin. Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we *know* are working, but *appear* to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really can't complain. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 21:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. > The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between > 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd > and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and > Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and > Hahodesh. Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. I don't see how a siman helps with that. [Email #2. -mi] On 04/06/2016 09:10 PM, Zev Sero wrote [about Akdamus]: > Why not a preface to the day's laining? Note that Tosfos Megillah 24a d"h Uvenavi says that in their day they still did targum of the haftaros on Pesach and Shavuos, and also that of matan torah (i.e. the leining of the first day of Shavuos), but not that of any other leining or haftarah (d"h Lo Shanu on the previous page). Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. -- 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 Apr 6 23:04:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:04:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. >> The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between >> 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd >> and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and >> Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and >> Hahodesh. >> > > Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. > I don't see how a siman helps with that. I checked RSZ's source, which turns out to be Yerushalmi Megilla 3:5. The context of the siman is a mahloket in the Yerushalmi whether Parah is defined as the Shabbat before Hahodesh or the Shabbat after Purim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 03:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:18:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407101838.GB3151@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:10:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who : wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he : was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since : by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. ... in parallel to the already existing Aqdamos. So it could be a 2nd hand reflection of the cycle in use when Aqdamus was written, rather than a dispoof of connection to the cycle. (BTW, the "-ta" ending is traditionally ascribed to the idea that when a Jew stops learning Torah (tav) he must immediately begin again (alef). A homily that does fit a siyum on Devarim and starting Bereishis far better than leining inyana deyoma. Of course, who knows if that was really the author's intent. It is a "cute" understanding of the piut and worth sharing either way.) And Yetziv Pisgam does not refer to pausing to give a preface before starting The Word. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:55:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, > where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his > conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads > him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, > I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to > Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. > And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches > Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need > to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we know are > working, but appear to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are > issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really > can't complain. > Akiva Miller Pretty much what R' Asher Weiss says un putting electricity in the maakeh bpatish category defined as things that chazal didn't fit in other categories. However I think he would say gdolei haposkim will come to a consensus, not "each for himself" on major categories. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 08:40:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Kitniyot, paper goods Message-ID: <20160407154022.7A2F717FBF0@nexus.stevens.edu> Can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. On Pesach, can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover? A. Paper plates, paper towels and napkins generally contain starch. Some forms of raw starch are kitniyot, such as corn starch, while other forms of starch, such as wheat starch, are actual chametz. In the U.S, it can safely be assumed that starch used in manufacturing is kitniyot, most probably corn-based. Though one should not intentionally add kitniyot to food, with respect to paper goods this is not a concern because the starch that is part and parcel of the paper itself is nifsal mei'achila (inedible). (If paper goods contain wheat starch, the fact that it is nifsal mei'achila may not suffice to permit their use, see Magen Avrohom 442:4). Based on the above, in the US, one may use paper plates, paper towels and napkins even if not certified for Passover. For a full list of non-food items that can be used on Passover without certification please go to https://oukosher.org/passover/guidelines/non-food-items/non-food-items/. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 09:53:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160407165337.GA21819@aishdas.org> RAM entered the discussion with: > There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, > but in my experience this idea is very new. And appears to be trying to leave with: > I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great > example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, > when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? (I agree that we lack clarity here, but I am not sure why RAM thinks it's a problem with the language rather than the ideas themselves.) Well, except that this notion that halakhah doesn't concern itself with phenomenona that people cannot experience unaided (in any situation) isn't limited to a discussion of electricity or even of Shabbos. The idea that canges internal to a chip in a fitbit wouldn't be an issue for hilkhos Shabbos (until there is some macroscopic effect of those changes) is by parallel to discussions of the permissibility of drinking water that contains creatures about the same size as a trace (thinkg "wire") on a chip. 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 Thu Apr 7 12:25:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:25:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy Message-ID: <20160407192530.8B8E617FAC2@nexus.stevens.edu> Last Shabbos we read Parshas Shmini, best known for discussing and specifying the requirements for discerning which animals are considered kosher. But what is a buffalo considered? Can we partake of a nice juicy buffalo burger? Although the Shulchan Aruch himself rules that a buffalo is considered a kosher beheimah, it is quite certain that he was not referring to our American buffalo, which, actually a bison, was unknown at the time... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:14:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:14:33 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A study of Dayan Usher Weiss on LED lights in his Tshuvos will reveal his Shita that such things are likely to be considered an issur under the rubric of Makeh B'patish. I didn't merit understanding all the halachic logic but I feel he would apply it here as well. We can be halachically exploitative and also include the view that your walking on Shabbos should not be the same as Chol! I'm sure many of us have seen the strange Shabbos walk avoiding large steps. Walking with a Fitbit may possibly be construed as transgressing this possuk in Nach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 07:30:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:30:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Matzah before Passover Message-ID: <20160408143111.6480417FAAD@nexus.stevens.edu> I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan... OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Am I permitted to eat matzah which is labeled "Not Kosher for Passover"? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Matzos which are labeled "Not Kosher for Passover" are made without a full-time mashgiach present during production, and the water used in kneading the dough is not mayim she'lanu (specially drawn water). Though we would not eat these matzahs on Pesach, it is not certain that the matzahs are absolute chametz. Mishnah Berurah 471:12 writes that the Rabbinic prohibition to not eat matzah on Erev Pesach, applies even to matzah that has folds or bubbles, since such matzahs are of questionable status, and they are not absolute chametz. This would imply that "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs may not be eaten Erev Pesach, since these matzahs are also of questionable status. Nonetheless, Rav Schachter, Shlita, maintains that the definition of matzah with respect to the minhag (practiced by some) not to eat matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh is not the same as the definition of matzah relative to Erev Pesach. Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 214:1) writes that a minhag is a form of a vow. Vows are interpreted in accordance with common usage of language. Since most people consider "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs to be chametz, they may be consumed until Erev Pesach. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] Forward Unsubscribe [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 09:01:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:01:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eshbaal Message-ID: <20160408160147.GA26885@aishdas.org> >From http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/first-person-banning-baal or http://j.mp/1VdtbxE :-)BBii! -Micha Biblical Archaeology Society First Person: Banning Ba'al As published in the March/April 2016 Biblical Archaeology Review Hershel Shanks -- 04/04/2016 Was the proper name Eshbaal -- man of Ba'al -- banned in Judah after King David's time? A recent analysis suggests that it was. Ba'al, meaning lord or master, was a common divine appellative in Canaan and neighboring areas during Biblical periods, most frequently referring to the storm god. Very recently an inscription was uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa -- a site already famous for a late 11th-10th-century B.C.E. inscription -- about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. According to excavator Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, the site is probably an imposing fortress erected by King David facing the Philistines. ... The name 'Ishba'al or, more commonly, Eshbaal, is well known from the Bible. It means "man of Ba'al." (The name Beda` appears for the first time in this inscription.) ... In the Bible various Ba'al names appear of people who lived in King David's time or earlier (Jerubbaal [Judges 6:32], Meribbaal [1 Chronicles 9:40], etc.). But the Bible mentions no Ba'al names after this -- neither Ba'al nor Eshbaal. Ba'al names simply do not appear in the Bible after David's time. The archaeological situation is a bit, but not completely, different. We have more than a thousand seals and seal impressions (bullae) and hundreds of inscriptions from Israel and Judah from the post-David period (ninth-sixth centuries B.C.E.). The name Eshbaal is not to be found among these names. The situation with the name Ba'al is slightly different; it does occasionally appear in Israel -- and of course in Philistia, Ammon and Phoenicia. But not in Judah! It seems that Ba'al and Eshbaal were banned in David's kingdom. One reason may have been that, at least officially, Judah was monotheistic. Thus, names constructed with a form of a foreign deity's name -- especially of Ba'al, who was Yahweh's rival -- would not have been considered kosher. In addition, David's predecessor and rival, King Saul, fathered a son named Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33 [2]) who reigned for two years (2 Samuel 2:10) -- another good reason to bar the name in David's kingdom. [2] "Ishbosheth" in the account in 2 Samuel 2-4. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 08:52:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:52:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> References: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160411155203.GA3225@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:36:04PM IDT, R Ben Waxman posted to Areivim: : https://twitter.com/benwaxman/status/718898333075566592 : Translation of something Rav Sharki said in an article on dati : students attending university: : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? This has to be a mistranslation. After all, being unable to find an answer is FAR short of proving no answer exists. Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and tragedy. 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil 3. God exists First proposal. Therefore 4. There is no evil But observation will tell you: 5. There is evil We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. So really only 3 & 5 are plausible open to denial: either there is no G-d, or there is no evil. As I posted there: Theists consistently reject #2 "If an OOO Being exists, there would be no evil." That is given short shrift, and therefore the real argument is really swept under the rug. A world in which the OOO Being provides all the good might be worse than a world in which the OOO Being wants to provide others the opportunity to be provides of good themselves. The assumption is that a world of passive recipients is better (more good) than a world of contributors. This argument is kind of like saying that: 1- A parent has the ability to see more obvious sources of pain in advance and help a child avoid them. 2- A good parent would try to do so. Yet 3- Good parents allow their toddlers to fall on their bums when learning to walk -- despite seeing it coming. Therefore, 4- there are no good parents. The answer is -- #2 is false. There are better goods than preventing all pain. But notice I didn't answer the question of theodicy, tzadiq vera lo. Arguably the question is unanswerable to humans. (Admittedly there are O Jews who deny #5, and assert that tragedy is an illusion. My argument is more that the best universe is one that has the lesser evil, that a paradox in the human condition makes a world with no tragedy itself imperfect. The question of the reality of evil is a tangent worth exploring, but not to go even further afield than my point.) R' Sherky is NOT possibly arguing we should therefore accept Prof Haslanger's argument, though. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: While RUS's name appears around the web both as "Sharky" and "Sherky", I'm going with the evidence of . -- 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 Mon Apr 11 16:21:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:21:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag Message-ID: I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, no chrain on fish. I wonder if any other groups have such a minhag , a nd what might be the origin of such a custom. 2nd question. In re nuts on pesach , It seems all the major agencies cite that any additive free whole nuts are ok without special cert. ( pecans excepted) . However the detroit vaad recommends assuring the nuts are paked in a hametz free facility. This is NOT noted by OU, CRChic, etc. i wonder if this would be an economic hardship that the non haredim lidvar hashem would hold to. Interestingly the costco kirkland nuts remark that they maybe packed in a place w wheat, soy ,etc... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 18:59:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:59:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat > ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, > no chrain on fish Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 08:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> References: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> Message-ID: <570D11D4.8000908@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 09:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: >> I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat >> ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, >> no chrain on fish http://chabadlibrary.org/books/chasidim/otzar/4/14/39.htm Note that although this does include all the ingredients of charoses, it does not include eggs, or the greens that might be used for karpas, contrary to the sources I will cite later. > Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first > day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first > day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, > so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. > > Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems > to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be > "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. The minhag not to eat maror before the seder goes back at least to the Rashba and Rashi. Although the Bet Yosef dismisses it, the Rama cites it, and it appears to be common in many communities, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi. The BY's question is answered by many, saying that even in the case of matzah "teavon" in this context means novelty, and the pleasure that comes from that, not an actual desire for the taste of the food, so it doesn't matter whether the food tastes good or bad, or isn't even tasted at all. See under "shulchan orech", that the Ashkenazi custom is not to eat even whole eggs at the first seder, but rather to eat only beaten eggs, which is probably the origin of the common minhag to eat the egg mashed up in salt-water as a "soup". See also who says it's the common minhag of sefardim not to eat lettuce or greens, beyond the requirements, for a day before each seder, including at the first seder. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 14:28:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:28:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness Message-ID: Cannot taste the bitterness 1. "Filled me with bitter herbs - Hisbiaani bMrorim - hirvani Laana - sated of bitter" - Midrash Eichah in Psicha and on the Passuk - compares the Exodus of Mitzrayim to the Exile after the First Temple was destroyed. 2. Apparently the bitter taste of these vegetables was familiar to all. 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after kiddush. 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush. A simple person might prefer to start off with Maror ASAP. Someone may have stolen the Karpas. Those who pursue radishes for Karpas may prefer it as a secondary variety of Maror, reminding us not to consider this the REAL maror, which can only be eaten with the Matzah, in advance of next year's Korban Pesach. 5. What if one ate the Karpas leaning - bhesseiba? That would explain the child's train of thought - you eat bitter herbs - for slavery and you ate them leaning? Sorry - I have no source yet for that. When Matza was just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed Thaddeus of Rome. 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth, just call in Rabbi Vaya to check it, or alternatively? take it off the menu, finding some other food for appetizer. 7. skip the appetizer. Renal patients who cannot drink begin with Kiddush on Matzah, which some would much prefer. The Magid would be after the meal had initialized. 8. Lately I checked two heads of Romaine lettuce. When I sample some leaves, no bitterness was to be found, just a very mild sweetness. in fact the Pri Chadash in back of SA Orach Chaim - openly advocates that totally sweet lettuce - sans bitterness - is perfectly acceptable! To recap, the Mishnah lists five grain varieties for Matzah, which are exclusive. It then lists 5 varieties for Maror, but even the Amoraim debated what to buy. Rav Huna Bar abba ? sought Maror - the bitterest herb eponymous with bitterness, as the Mehadrin would seek. Rava chided him - Chas Rachmana Alan - Hashem had consideration for us and prefers Chassa (pun - means lettuce) which has some sweetness. 9. I take this metaphorically - Hashem is always keeping the balance of sweetness and bittterness in the fortunes of the Jerwish People. Fixating on bitterness can lead to bad results. 10. The Pri Chadash quotes the famous Aruch (of Rome, a century before Rashi, disciple perhaps of Rabeinu Chananeil) on Charchavina, one of the 5 species of the Mishna, defined generically - "one sort of bitter herbs". 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 sons taste it ? 12. Is Maror a specific species exact type of plant? Ateres Tzvi (margin of OC 473) and Elya Rabba combine to say there is a family called Lettuga - lettuces. That helps immensely - as the leading species candidate is "bitter lettuce" - Hebrew Chassa Matzpen - has spine of bumps on its leaf, and is a glorified dandelion! My neighbor the botanist has no idea where to find it but he offered me some fresh horseradish leaves. Horseradish relates to the cabbage family - including endives, which get some mention. 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection. My father's tears would flow as he ground his horseradish every year. The Chochmas Shlomo, Rav Shlomo Kluger, seems to have the high road of directness here. Rambamists can see that the examples of foods barely edible - which barely are considered normal foods - in Shvisas Asor - are these very vegetables - Chizrin. 15. The famous Rav Chaim Berlin, son of the Netziv, apparently got medical advice not to eat horseradish, and sought grounds to absolve his Neder. He sent a letter to his father the Netziv whether he should continue to eat Khrein. Netziv - as predictable - answers - use Sallatin - lettuce - like the common practice, and also the zayis olive size is very small. [Meromei Sadeh]. 16. In OC 473 the Lvush and Elya Rabba - praise to the publishers of the new Levush set - discuss Maror, and Ateres Tzvi explains that any lettuce is fine, as long as it is bitter. 17. Biologically chickory and lettuce are very close. If even the cabbages - the latin name braccidae are also included in Maror, then perhaps both kale in its beauty and varieties are included, even perhaps arugula. 18. Perhaps I will make the bracha on kale, then arugula, then Romaine, then horseradish for mimetic imitation of my father. 19. For me - no more sweet or tasteless Maror, I cannot make it bitter anymore. 20. See also Kovetz - in back of the old Rambams. See Aruch al Hashas who has in kilayim and in other places diagrams and exact species names for all the candidates mentioned in the mishnayos. There is an alphabetical index in the last volume. 21. Identification of Chizrin with Chazeres is no sure thing. Professor Felix has a sefer called haChaklaut..... which explains from a farmer's point of view what it means that a crop thrives in the shade. 22. This is actually a call for help! I imagine most people deal with these questions annually. Please - any opinion or information will be helpful to me. 23. David Wacholder 5:15 PM (2 minutes ago) Email: dwacholder at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Wed Apr 13 09:07:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:07:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum Message-ID: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: https://soundcloud.com/jroot-radio/yosef-wikler-apr-07?in=jroot-radio/sets/kashrus-on-the-air. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me or click here to subscribe kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 13 13:16:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum In-Reply-To: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds > this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in > 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered > Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's > largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... This is last years info. The link is to an article from 5775. The OU & Star-K are still certifying quinoa, as they did last year. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 14 18:51:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:51:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos Message-ID: Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this (even opening with the remark that this halacha is "pashut - simple"), yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. I will concede that this was a literally parenthetical (or rather, bracketed) comment, and perhaps we should not darshen too much into it. But on the other hand, he had the option of saying that a choleh may *eat* kitnyos himself, and insted he took the extra step of saying that *we* may do the cooking. And yet, the Chofetz Chaim omitted the warning which is so ubiquitous today, that the cooking should be done in separate pots, not to be eaten from by healthy Ashkenazim. So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. (Plenty of poskim talk about ta'aroves kitniyos, but that's usually an after-the-fact situation, and I don't want to get bogged down on whether or not the situations are similar. I'd rather hear about those who explicitly address the keilim issue.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 07:15:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:15:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160415141538.GA30368@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:51:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that : Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid : ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. RMF explains that one may drink whisky (51 weeks a year) aged in wine casks because we do not prohibit ta'am stam yeinam. The core of his argument is that stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6 (YD 134:5). One can taste the wine in a mixture of one part wine to 6 parts water. (IM YD 1:62) Well, qitniyos is batel berov. (Rama OC 453:1, see MB ad loc that explains the Rama must mean where the qitniyos is a mi'ut, and is not permitting every mixture.) Bringing me to the need to switch the formula for KLP Coca Cola. Corn is a late edition to qitniyos, as it is a New World plant. Corn syrup adds the issue of mei qitniyos. A 12 oz can of coke has 140 Cal (Pepsi: 150). High fructose corn syrup is 4 Cal/gm, so that 12 fluid oz can cannot contain more than 35 gm = 1-1/4 oz (weight) mei qitniyos. Less than 10%, never mind rov. So, the problem with standard American Coke is mei iffy-qitniyos that is batul. And yet it's avoided on Pesach? (According to 80% of tasters prefer Mexican Coke, which -- like KLP Coke -- only differs by the use of sugar rather than HFCS. So I hope no one from Coke is actually reading this post.) :-)BBii! -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 Fri Apr 15 07:49:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness Message-ID: 1. R' Micha pointed out the Yerushalmi discussion whether Chassa metuka sweet lettuce is kosher. That shows that the name - Chazeret Chasa - synonymous with Marror is sufficient, and bitter taste is not necessary. 2. R' Chaim Kanievsky points out that the Chazon Ish - Orach Chaim page 398 in Otzar Hachochma - strongly rejects that conclusion from the Yerushalmi! (hat tip to R' Kalman Gutman!) 3. After 6 lines pointing out how vital the taste of Maror is, CI shows the absurds of such a conclusion - if so you can leave the Maror in Chazeres, and need not taste it at all - swallow in a sieve - and since any vegetable which is bitter is sufficient to be Yotzei, we see that the bitter taste is the governing principle. 4. 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond edible. 6. Thus we should pursue bitter lettuce. The paradox is that the lettuce industry spends all its resources to prevent "bolting" - becoming bitter. The economy runs on sweet lettuce, as CI also pointed out. Pesach is in spring, so it is not so simple. 7. That would be the practical problem the Yerushalmi is attacking. You do not need the strongest bitterness, mild transitional bitterness sufficient. 8. The super-kosher bug-free industry now markets "greenhouse" kale and arugula, which are mildly bitter. I purchased both last night. Usually they are used by French chefs. This is a classic Chazon Ish. He wanted Torah based lifestyle, and Mehadrin bitterness in Maror fits right in with his theme. Build on the sound simple meaning of the Torah. -- David Wacholder Email: dwacholder at gmail.com dwacholder at optonline.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:59:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:59:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos Message-ID: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Or if you want, I am equally reviving the threads "Minhag Avos and Minhag haMakom" (see the group of threads at ) "Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva" "Paradigm Changes in Halacha" or the quite timely "obsession with kitniyot" In AhS this week, I found I was not alone in concluding from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim ch.4, cases in both TB and RY) that there is a general rule binding one (of a community) to maintain minhag avos. (At least when there is no conflicting single minhag hamaqom.) The AhS (YD 119:42, closing paranthetic) cites the minhag of Benei Baishan (Pesachim 50b) not to travel from Tzur to Tzidon on erev Shabbos. His case is a visitor who is keeping he minhagim of his host community. The Shakh and Maharal Chaviv say that if everyone else is eatting something that by his minhag is prohibited -- not as local pesaq, but as actual minhag -- he may eat it with them. The AhS leaves it with a tzarikh iyun gadol, because visiting a place should not allow their minhagim to override minhag avos. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:43:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:43:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57110C14.1000403@sero.name> On 04/15/2016 10:49 AM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: > 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your > lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond > edible. This is not true. The ChTz says no such thing. -- 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 Sun Apr 17 09:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit Message-ID: I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat. Both of them are important experts in halacha and modern technology Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need t fixler said he heard the same psak from t ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 03:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:27:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 1:02 PM Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both > Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat.... > Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it > was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need r fixler said he heard > the same psak from r ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan Why is it not mesaken mane? [Transliteration mine. -micha] -- Shui Haber From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:27:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Shui Haber wrote: > Why is it not mesaken mane? [transliteration still mine -micha] They hold that anything that cannot be seen or felt is nor metaken-maneh or any other melacha. Of course if one pushes buttons or has a model in which the results are shown immediately on the watch then it would be forbidden. The assumption is that nothing on the watch indicates that it is recording. Rosen indicated to me that he has written all this but I do not at present have his teshuva. The general approach of tzomet is that (almost) all their products are meant for special individuals etc, sick, police, doctors etc when needed. Though they don't manufacturer a smart watch the same principles hold. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:51:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:51:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us from my question.) My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can remember. But the hagada seems to say more. It does not merely tell what the proper response should be, but it also seems to direct that response to specific responder(s). I am referring to the hagada's words, "v'af atah". What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! Am I totally off track? Anyone see my question? Does anyone have a translation or perush that doesn't ignore the word "af"? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB: > > Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger > (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) > G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and > tragedy. > > 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO > 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil > 3. God exists > > First proposal. Therefore > 4. There is no evil > > But observation will tell you: > 5. There is evil > > We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. > (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually once started a thread here called ?What can?t God do??. Some examples: Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? Can God lie? I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. > (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a > prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil > to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, God, have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God really want that? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:04:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:04:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5714F781.9020002@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:51 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: > > (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem > (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar > (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh > (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved > > (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us > from my question.) I will, however, point out that translating it "knock out", or as any kind of blow, is completely ignorant. There is simply no way that it can mean that. So where does this stupid idea come from? It *could* come from some amhoretz confusing it with "hakei", hei kaf hei, meaning to hit. But I think it's more likely to come from Yiddish, a language the baal hagada never even heard of, and the phrase "hack ois", or in English "hack out". > My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply > have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that > would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can > remember. What specific wording are you suggesting instead of the ones the baal hagadah uses? > What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should > hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument > being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh > his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! > > Am I totally off track? I think so. How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him. -- 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 Mon Apr 18 08:09:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:09:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: What is the status of cooking kitniyot in a pot on Pesach (for ashkenazim). Outside of Israel this is relevant only for small children, sick etc. In Israel it is relevant this year as to whether one can cook kitniyot on the 7th day of Pesach for the immediate following shabbat. All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the pot even for use the following year ! He further claims that this is the standard custom. I have seen that RHS allows use the same day. Does anyone know of others who require actually kashering the pot even if it won't be used until Pesach next year. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:04:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: I asked why the Hagada uses the words "v'af atah" to introduce the answer to the rasha. R' Zev Sero responded: > How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked > son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that > your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say > something harsh to him. Interesting thought. But if so, then for the other OOPS! I hadn't noticed that these exact same words introduce the Hagada's answer to the chacham. And rightly so - Your child is asking a detailed question, and you too should respond with a detailed answer. My bad. Thanks! But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? (The She'eino Yodea Lish'ol never asks anything at all, so there is no congruency to invoke RZS's suggestion.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:14:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:14:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57156A61.2000800@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:04 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > > But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: > > 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? > 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? > 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? Because he simply quotes the pasuk. In the cases of the first two sons he (for some reason) davka *doesn't* quote the pasuk's response (Avadim Hayinu to the chacham and Zevach Pesach Hu to the rasha), but makes one up for the chacham, and borrows the she'eino yodea lish'ol's answer for the rasha. For the second two sons he simply quotes the pesukim verbatim. -- 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 Tue Apr 19 13:34:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:34:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to others subunits (e.g. ethnic). Any good actuary (or even a poor one) can tell you correlation doesn't prove causation, but it does provide some thoughts on some interesting questions (e.g. why the switch to ethnic minhagim from geographic ones?). 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 01:07:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:07:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: a story from years ago A friend of mine lived near RMF on the lower east side. One year RMF invited him for seder. However the friend didn't eat gebrochs but was too polite to tell RMF that he couldn't come because he was more machmir and so made up some excuse. Same thing happened the next year. The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat at my seder. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 05:17:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:17:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special Message-ID: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Pesach is a Yom Tov of diverse moods. The tragic and heroic, the mournful and hopeful, the somber and sentimental ? strangely commingled and reflected in the services and rituals. One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l?zecher aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b?Av. Interestingly, the first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b?Av. So as Pesach begins Friday evening this year (and last), so too, Tisha b?Av (actual date) begins Friday evening this year (and last). At our seder, we read about the Four Children (quite different from each other, but a portion of each of the sons in all of us). On Pesach we usher in the solemn days of Sefirah, which cast a spell upon the mirthful spirit of this Yom Tov and which recalls the ill-fated Bar Kochba rebellion with its gloomy aftermath; and on the same night, we open the door for Eliyahu HaNavi, the harbinger of glad tidings. On the day we recite Yizkor (with sad overtones), we recite Hallel (quite the opposite). On the day when we read the Haftorah of the ?Valley of the Dry Bones,? and we ask with the prophet: ?Son of man, can these bones live?? (Ezek. 37); this very same day, we read Shir Hashirim, the song of youth and of hope. When we think of all the trouble, travail, terrorism in the world and some of the trials and tribulations in our own lives, we can drink four cups of wine and temporarily forget our troubles. May your present be better than your past and not as good as your future! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:42:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:42:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special In-Reply-To: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> References: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Message-ID: <20160420154253.GA21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:17:29AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l'zecher : aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b'Av. Interestingly, the : first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b'Av. The iqar is to have two cooked foods. Egg and shankbone is a layer on top of that. Judging from the Ari's lining up the items on the ke'arah with the 10 sefiros, wre are using the egg as the cooked food in memory of the chagigah, and the bone to regall the qorban pesach. One could link that to mourning, that we are mourning the real seder, complete with qorban, as we sit down to our best-we-can-do one. And we did lose the ability to make a qorban pesach on 9 beAv. But the egg isn't really about aveilus directly. 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 Wed Apr 20 08:47:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:47:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:07:55AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly : asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the : real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 : guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said : now you can eat at my seder. I know also the IM permits Ashkenazim who daven "Sfard" to switch back to Ashkenaz (even over 150 years after the family first switched to). But I didn't think he was in general a believer in the idea that Litvisher minhagim were superior to other East European ones. Just that davening was differenct because it's a switch back to the earlier nusach. So what's going on here? Why would he encourage someone to quit the minhag of gebrochts? (For weaker grounds than usually argued against qitnios.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:57:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:57:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> References: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> I can't answer for sure but my guess would be that RMF felt that one could quit gebrochs for a sufficiently good reason and he felt that this was a good reason. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 20:17:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos References: Message-ID: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> R? AM: What about an ordinary old-fashioned film camera? Without a flash, there's nothing electrical about it. In fact, when one presses the shutter, nothing at all happens except that some chemical reactions occur in the film. Even after Shabbos, there is no visible change to the film, until after it has undergone some specific chemical treatment. Yet I've never seen a shomer shabbos person use such a camera on Shabbos, nor have I ever hear it suggested that it might only be d'rabanan. ------------------ Old MYG: That?s a great question, I think, about the film camera. I agree that it makes sense that it should be only a d?rabanan, except for Polaroid. And the d?rabanan may well be that since its entire purpose is to be in service to that Kesivah, it?s a Kli She?melachto L?issur, and therefore muktzah. But if that?s so, then the heteirim of muktzah would therefore apply, like tiltul min hatzad, and shvus d?shvus, l?tzorech gufo, and so on? After reading through it, I still don?t see any reason to prohibit it besides for Muktzah? Rabbi Bleich at this link (http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%203/Survey%20of%20Recent.pdf) quotes R? SZA that it?s ?mistaver? that taking a film photo is assur m?drabanan. Rabbi Bleich himself is not so impressed with that argument. ----------------------------- New MYG: I thought of another issur ? taking a photo with a film camera is Hachanah, because you?re only taking it for the result that you will get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d?oraysa. KT and CKVS, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:50:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:41:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the harsh attack. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:32:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:32:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> References: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160421193255.GA9816@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:17:10PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I thought of another issur -- taking a photo with a film camera is : Hachanah, because you're only taking it for the result that you will : get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d'oraysa. Return back to nidon didan (from the subject line)... A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the same reasoning would apply. But many other such devices can be used as a digital watch on Shabbos. So carrying it around -- even if you want the step tracking -- is not ONLY for the tracking. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:50:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:50:56PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to : make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not : a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. Actually, for RMF in particular, I find that hard to imagine. The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they were in error, he does advocate a more limited form -- cooking dishes from boiled matzah because the result may be confused with recipes that produce chameitz. The Keneses haGedolah (17th cent) confirms the Raavan's fears with a story of it actually happening. Someone made fish "breaded" with matzah meal, and the neighbor mistakenly learned from it that it was okay to fry fish in actual flour. Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after the Besh"t -- there are stories about the Baal Shem Tov eating keneidelach on Pesach, the Magid of Mezritch did not eat gebrochts. The SA haRav (discussed here annually) says that the change was due to a change in how we make matzah. This is the same generation in which kneading time was counted toward the mil, and therefore the whole process got more rushed. Until then, the chance of umixed flour remaining on/in the dough was unrealistic. I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thing cracker matzos; it would only apply to the Rama's only less than a tefach matzah. So here you have two people writing at close to the same time, one explaing why the minhag recently started, the other assuming the minhag is old and no longer applicable to the current umdena. But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer applicable. 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 Thu Apr 21 13:04:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:04:14 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: between gebroks and kitniyos, with our modern eye could we say one is more justified or were both products of the time. eg gebroks was invented in altererebe's time as a reaction to the nexus of thick matzos with incompetent bakers. kitniyos a reaction to legume-flour nexus . today , almost all matzos are either mechanized or learnedly baked; and only thin matzos made in ashkenazi land [unless you order softmatza.com]. and though legume flours like chickpea are extant, the communities that primarily use them never accepted this new minhag. it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them off... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 19:50:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on > Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal > Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. > I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the > pot even for use the following year ! Last week, in the thread "Ta'am kitniyos", I wrote that Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this, yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. So I will now rephrase the question that I had asked there: RET referred here to "seforim". Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this question in writing, and gives his reasoning. (My wild guess is that if such a source can be found, it is less likely to be in the context of baby food, and more likely to be in the context of an Ashkenazi who was invited to eat at a Sephardi home on Pesach.) Anyone know of such seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 13:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:50:07 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2016 5:50 AM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they > were in error, he does advocate a more limited form ... > Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after > the Besh"t... The SA haRav... > I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. > Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that > gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thin cracker matzos... > But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world > used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which > case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer > applicable. I don't see how any of these considerations suggest that Gebrochts is a Minhag that requires Hatarah. In fact I think it more than likely they reflect otherwise. The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are hardly substantial. And if there is any substance to the reason being related to the change in the way Matza is made, well then being so late, it can hardly be considered a binding Minhag. And one opinion is not adequate to propel activity to the point of being a binding Minhag, especially when it is so poorly justified. BTW it is astonishing that Matza of 10mm thickness be considered edible when baked to the point of being hard. You would need a hammer and cold chisel to break it. It makes no sense. Such Matza would only be edible if it was baked soft. Re the ShTeshuvah, he limits the problem to soft Matza, which is GRATED on a RibAysen (and explains that the problem no longer exists due to changes to the Matza used for making meal being baked hard and describe CRUSHING it) so it must have been soft. Soft Matza that is whole can be easily evaluated to determine if it is fully baked. Once it is grated however, that becomes impossible. The problem is compounded when you remember that probably the most important quality sought by the balabusta is that it be as white as possible so the risk of being under baked is all the greater. There was not ever a concern that flour remained in the Matza and that might become Chamets. But even if it did it can not become Chamets since it has been heated. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 09:11:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160422161136.GA4937@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:04:14PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them : off... An earlier question... Given our lack of minhag hamaqom, do we want to cast minhag avos off? What ties us to community if we're not connecting "laterally" to our contemporaries if not our connection to the past? Pesach is so experiential and so nostalgia driven, perhaps we should harbor / develop enough attachment to minhag avos (mimeticism) for that alone to motivate keeping qitniyos. :-)|,|ii! (And a special :-)|,ii to any Granikim out there!) -Micha PS: Yes, I do appreciate the irony that in a post about preserving minhag avos, I do a "shout out" to those who use 2 matzos at their seder. Even though most of them are doing so in a choice of textualism over mimeticism. -- 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 Fri Apr 22 09:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 06:50:07AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are : hardly substantial. The stories about the Besht are that he DID eat gebrochts. This isin contrast to the SA haRav who was firmly against. And the SA haRav (shu"T #6 in the bac of vol 6) IS substantial. See last year's BTW, while I fint this hard to accept as RMF's pesaq, R Eli Turkel told us last year that RSZA does hold as per the story about RMF: > In Halichos Shlomo (p90) it states explicitly that one can change his > custom and eat gebrochs after hatart nedarim. However, this should be done > only if there is a good reason (tzorach chashuv) for the change. Thus, for > a chatan he would allow the hatarat nedarim if keeping bebrochs would cause > family difficulties. And R Yisrael Herczeg wrote: > ... I just looked over the notes of the droshoh Rav Yitzchok > Mordechai HaKohen Rubin gave last Shabbos. He said that Rav Elyashiv > allowed for hataras neder on gebrochts. He also mentioned that Rav Chaim > Kanyevski said that the Steipler was matir neder on gebrochts for someone > who had difficulty eating matzah unless it was softened with liquid. He > added that Rav Chaim Greineman said that the Chazon Ish told him that the > Steipler's heter was invalid. And yet in his own life: > I asked Rav Elyashiv z"l if I could be matir neder on gebrokts and he told > me I could not. >From R/Prof Y Levine: > A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud > of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in > the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating > gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar > Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: > The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one > who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to > eating Gebrokts. > It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may > rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. > Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when > Matzohs were thick Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST that the minhag refers to a kind of matzah most of you do not eat. I have a few lb from the Syrian community in Flatbush, in addition to the usual. So if I had the minhag of nisht gebrochts, RYSE might still have told me to limit my hataras nedarim and continue not eating Syrian-style matzos with liquids. IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for reasons similar to the RYSE report. :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 14:11:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding hachanah, R' Micha Berger wrote: > A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the > same reasoning would apply. True, but hachana is a problem only if specific actions are taken to do that preparation. For example, washing one's hands over a sink full of dirty dishes is okay, even if one likes the idea that the dishes will get wet, provided that he'd be washing his hands there anyway, even if the sink was empty. So too for the Fitbit, which is already attached to whatever, and one is not doing any specific action for the Fitbit. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 24 04:00:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:00:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says > he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the > minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST ... > IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my > opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. > And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for > reasons similar to the RYSE report. May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. The closest true argument was documented by the ShTeshuvah who clearly related the problem to the type of Matza baked to be used for Gebrochts - it was at risk of not being properly baked [presumably because they were trying to keep it as white a possible] and being Chamets in the first place - it actually had nothing to do with the Matza Meal becoming wet. And that problem was solved by modifying the Matza baked for meal to be baked hard. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 15:27:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim Message-ID: In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: shabasos limnucha moadim l'simcha chagim uzmanim l'sason I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are, especially as opposed to the other three. But what precisely distinguishes the other three from each other? My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they the same in regards to Sason? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 12:58:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:58:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> An Areivim exchange... On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08pm IDT, R `Eli Turkel wrote: > what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:31pm +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes : from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. ... Doesn't this just beg the question? I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 2nd day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 18:22:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:22:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Areivim, Lisa Liel wrote: >> On Areivim R `Eli Turkel wrote: >>> what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts >> According to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. > I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah > of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw > from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? Who says he *did* associate lions with melucha? The pesukim don't make such an association. Unkelus does make that connection, translating "gur aryeh Yehudah" as a prophecy that royalty will come to Yehudah, but even there Rashi explains that this means that a young David will become a mighty king, just as a lion cub becomes a mighty beast. So the lions there are not really a symbol of royalty but of might; and Unkelus's treatment of the rest of the pasuk seems to confirm that. But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. -- 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 Apr 27 00:50:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:50:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> The best source is RYZA halichot shlomo volume on moadim - Pesach page 350 (shin-mem) He pasjens that (like this year) one can cook kitniyot on friday for shabbat assuming there are people in the neighborhood who eat kitniyot (ie sefardim) and on shabbat one can eat foods that has in them chametz derabban. One should be machmir only on chametz deoraisa. The notes below go into detailed reasons. I didnt see anything about the dishes. but as mentioned he just casually says one can cook the kitniyot. Rav Rimon in his hagadah (ie the last few years) also allows cooking kitniyot for the last shabbat after pesach Though it isnt a sefer the email sent out of ROY's piskei halachot also allow cooking kitniyot on friday for shabbat for ashkenazim again using the reasoning that sefardim can eat the kitniyot on Pesach itself (he quotes the shut of RSZA minchat shlomo tenina end of siman 17). He paskens that it is preferable to use special pots -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 00:56:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:56:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RMF and gebrocha Message-ID: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebrochts According to Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik of Vitebsk, the custom originated with Dov Ber of Mezeritch .[2] (This appears, for example, in Shulchan Aruch HaRav , c. 1800.) In fact, the members of some nineteenth century Lithuanian Jewish communities deliberately ate gebrochts to demonstrate the permissibility of this practice.[*citation needed *] Both the Vilna Gaon [3] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ruled that there is no reason to avoid eating gebrochts. (no source given) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 05:03:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:03:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Changes in Shmoneh Esreh Message-ID: Yesterday, as I was davening mincha, I found myself working hard to keep my eyes in the siddur, lest I make one of the mistakes that I'd have to repeat Shmoneh Esreh for. It occurred to me that in the course of the year, there are many minor changes which are *not* m'akev the tefila, such as Anenu, Al Hanisim, and the constant choice between Sim Shalom and Shalom Rav. But it seems to me that only four of those are so critical that - depending on circumstances - they can be m'akev one's Shmoneh Esreh: Morid Hageshem or omitting it HaMelech Hakadosh vs. HaE-l Hakadosh Tal Umatar Yaaleh V'yavo The chidush that came to me suddenly is that of these four changes, *three* of them apply on Chol Hamoed Pesach. There are three parts of the tefilah that we must get right, because messing up *any* of those three requires us to repeat the Shmoneh Esreh from scratch. This seems to be unique. Is there another part of the year where even two difference changes are me'akev? In Eretz Yisrael, Tal Umatar begins only two weeks after Geshem, but in Chu"l, I don't think there's ever a situation where even two of those apply at the same time. Even on Aseres Y'mei Teshuva, which has six changes (Zachrenu, Mi Kamocha, HaMelech Hakadosh, HaMelech Hamishpat, U'chsov, B'sefer), only one of them is critical. I'm not sure if there is any special significance to all this. I just wanted to point it out in case it might help others pay more attention and not forget the changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 08:10:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:10:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73622773-BB32-4FA9-B6ED-CFF33EF6C253@optimum.net> RMGR: > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. > I would have thought just the reverse. If there?s a halachic foundation all it requires is a psak. When the behavior is extra-halachic we may require hataras nedarim. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 09:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:12:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:06:02AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) ... :> We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. :> (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO : This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually : once started a thread here called "What can't God do?". Some examples: : Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? : Can God lie? The Moreh discusses both points. 1- Omnipotence is really a statement that nothing lies beyond his Potency than insisting He posesses an infinite amount of power. 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless nonsense clauses. The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Why? It would be pure Tov, not Chesed. : Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. Thus the idea I labeled #1 above from the Moreh, and his via negativa. R' Moshe Taqu infamously takes the opposite approach -- it would be presumptuous to define G-d even to the extent of insisting that we must limit ourselves to defining what He Isn't. RMT therefore insists we must accept the descriptions in Tanakh uncritically. (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, one way or the other.) :> (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a :> prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil :> to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. : Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general : problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, : God, : have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods : may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. : So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God : really want that? Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congential birth defects and other such natural evils. This could be one element in a broader answer. And that was sort of my point... By ignoring the whole subject of theodicy, Dr Haslanger misses the main point she would need to refute. As an aside, a central part of RYBS's hashkafah is that much of free will is choosing between goods that are in dialecitcal tension. More often than a pure good vs evil choice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? the tragic which :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427170529.GB29457@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:41:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah wrote: : Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you : should also say something harsh to him : : This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the : harsh attack. Maybe it's true by definition. A rasha is someone who is beyond listening. And the child ready to hear the soft response isn't a rasha. I saw someone suggest haqheih here is meant in the sense of morbid craving, not blunting. As in Y-mi Shevi'is 4:6 (vilna 12a) "Amar Rabbi Avun: derekh haqeihus okhelin oso". And shinav -- in the sense of veshinantam. In which case, you have the pretty idea: Make him crave his studies. But it doesn't work. "Haqhei es shinav" is an idiom that is used elsewhere by Chazal, such as Sotah 49a (2x). (There is also "anavim qeihos" as unripe or sour grapes in Avos 4:20, but that may just be a third usage.) But since haqhei es shinav is an idiom, maybe the idiomatic meaning is far milder than a literal translation. Like "shut him up". (Edginess of my translation intentional, to relay the aggressiveness implied by the idiom.) :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:21:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:21:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> On 04/27/2016 12:12 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore > part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. > But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, > any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless > nonsense clauses. > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. CS Lewis agreed with the Rambam. See my .sig Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach bigvul". The purpose of creation, Chabad says, and of all our avodah, is to make Him a "dira batachtonim", which is a logical impossibility. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 13:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed : >create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", : and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach : bigvul".... Nowadays there are multiple logics. Some are just mathematical playthings, but many are used in the real world. (The two I somewhat know are fuzzy logic, used in many problems like thermostats, to represent predicates like "hot" which has varying degrees of truth; and quantum logic, used in subatomic physics.) Speaking of non-classical logics , I heard RYBS discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. Because RYBS's topic was how bein hashemashos is actually both days at once. This explains why an esrog used one day is assur BHS because it's the same day and then assur the next day because it was also BHS -- the start of that day. But the notion of noone special logic makes the Rambam's idea that logic is part of Truth and thus of His Essence much harder to support. You would have to go meta, and speak of the usability of various logics in general. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 14:46:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:46:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name>,<20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> > > Speaking of non-classical logics > , I heard RYBS > discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which > he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows > for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that > halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. ---------------------- I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law of the excluded middle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle Moadim lsimcha 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 Apr 27 18:35:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:35:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: I had asked: > Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many > publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that > kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. > But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this > question in writing, and gives his reasoning. Yes! "Medical Halachah for Everyone" [1980, Feldheim] by Abraham S. Abraham MD, page 82, gives a specific procedure for an Ashkenazi who is suffering from diarrhea and needs to eat rice on Pesach, and then writes: > Separate utensils must be used for cooking and eating such foods on Pesach. His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf Hachayim). Then, he discusses at length whether or not a (Ashkenazi) guest needs to worry if his (Sefardi) host used those keilim in the past 24 hours, and several related situations. HOWEVER -- I am shocked by how different this halacha appears in Dr Abraham's book, and in the sefer he cites. I concede that the Kaf Hachayim does cite several problems that the Ashkenazi should be concerned with, and I concede that Dr Abraham's procedure safeguards against them all. But it also conjures up additional problems that the Kaf Hachayim was NOT worried about. Some might say that I am being too hard on a "kitzur sefer" that tries to service the layman by packing a lot of information into a few pages. I say: On the contrary! His book could have been two words shorter if he had left out the words "and eating". If the kli rishon is okay after 24 hours, I would imagine that the kli sheni is okay even sooner. Oh - here's another thing: The Kaf Hachayim was talking about a *healthy* Ashkenazi who eats from Sefardi keilim. I think that if Dr Abraham is going to apply those halachos to an Ashkenazi *choleh*, maybe he should cite a posek on it. Caveat lector! Check the sources whenever you can! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:20:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > > > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. > > He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any > of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf > Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the beginning of the first volume? Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:29:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Old Audio Tapes Message-ID: <57581d198d4c45e5863bdf9e300d7dac@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Our shul is getting rid of a large number of old shiurim on audio cassettes and CD's. Does anyone know of any digitization projects that might be interested before they are disposed of? Kol Tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 09:26:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:26:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] I shall sing to Hashem for He is exalted above the arrogant Message-ID: <1461860967014.47103@stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/gmsnkks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 30 12:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:29:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Matzik l'rabim Message-ID: <5725078F.7070109@zahav.net.il> Rav Asher Weiss discusses a case in which a small number of graves are found in a place that is not designated to be a beit qevarot. This piece of land is slated for a large construction project, which would in all likelihood mean damaging the graves. He discusses various reasons for moving (or not moving) the graves. One of the ideas that he brings up is "matziq et harabim" (damage to the public). He concludes that this reason wouldn't apply here; the claim "matziq et harabim" can be used to permit moving graves only if the graves cause teumah to kohenim. Why would forcing kohenim to take a different path (possibly a very small detour) be sufficient reason to move graves but a major building project not? PS: For a variety of other reasons, RAW permitted moving the graves. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:24:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 19:24:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: in response to David Riceman's suggestion - extra-halachic behaviour is likely to require Hatarah whilst those that have a Halachic foundation require a Pesak consider this: if there is no Halachic foundation for a Minhag then it will never require Hatarah, it is an error. The custom to sniff snuff in Shule on Shabbos can never gain status of a Minhag that requires Hatarah if there is some Halachic foundation then notwithstanding it not being recognised as binding Halacha, if it is adopted as a custom it may well require Hatarah if one wishes to abandon the custom Therefore since we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation of there being a risk that wet Matzos may become Chamets, the Minhag of Gebrochts is no different to the Paroches being blue or maroon and suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 08:34:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 11:34:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: I have a question about an Old French word that appears in a Rashi. I hope that someone on the list is fairly fluent in French, or has access to such a person. But first, an introduction... It is not unusual for an English-speaker to refer to Rosh Hashana as the "New Year", or to Yom Kippur as the "Day of Atonement". These are legitimate translations, and it is clear to me that they are used in certain circles. In contrast, the name of Chanuka is generally not translated; it is transliterated or adapted into English as Chanukkah or Hanuka or something similar, but translations like "Festival of Dedication" (and "Festival of Lights", which isn't really a translation at all) are much rarer. But this post is not about those holidays; it is about the one we just completed. I have long thought that the English language was unique, in that we have a translation for the name Pesach, namely "Passover". I concede that although we might perceive of "Passover" as a basic word of simple English, it was actually coined by William Tyndale in the early 1500s, for the specific purpose of translating the root "pesach" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible#Legacy). Be that as it may, it *IS* an easily-understood term for any English-speaker, most especially in the contexts of Shmos 12:11-13: "They will eat the Passover offering... and I will pass over them..." and Shmos 12:27: ?It is the Passover offering, to G-d Who passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt..." I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the focus on the experiential story. But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:16:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:16:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 11:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 20:13:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> On 4/27/2016 7:09 PM, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: > I don't know on what basis the digests say that you need separate kelim > for kitniyos. The taam of kitniyos that is absorbed into the pot in > which it was cooked is automatically batel. I think it's just recommended > for a heker, so you'll remember not to eat kitniyos yourself, and not > really necessary at all. > And if you know before Pesach that you're going to cook kitniyos for > next Shabbos, you'll leave it out of the chometz cupboard. I read various guides about this Shabbat. To sum up the issues involved: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. 2) Does the eiruv tavshilin cover cooking kitniyot? Since you would be cooking the rice/beans when they are assur to you, maybe teh ET doesn't cover it. However according to Rav Shlomo Zalman, if one lives in a place in which there are Sefardim, the theoretical possibility that a Sefardi person would stop over is enough. 3) Checking the kitniyot: One has to check the kitniyot for chameitz. I personally bought Kitov rice that had been checked twice and only a third check was required. Why they didn't check it a third time, I don't know. 4) Anything cold (eg chummus) isn't a problem at all. 5) Addendum: This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issues. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:45:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 12:45:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Simon Montagu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < >> He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any >> of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf >> Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the > beginning of the first volume? > > Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two > possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera > Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is > the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! Hazon Ovadiah on the Haggada (note 8 on page 55 of the 5739 edition) brings some of the same sources, without so many rashei teivot: Shu"t Zera Emet helek 3 (helek Orah Hayyim siman 48) http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=742&st=&pgnum=122 Hukkat Hapesah siman 453 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7855&st=&pgnum=172 But as far as I can tell none of the sources are directly addressing the question of an Ashkenazi cooking kitniot in his own house, as opposed to being invited to a Sephardi. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 14:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 17:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: On Areivim, in the thread "kitniyot", R' Ben Waxman wrote: > It doesn't make sense to me that the only holiday in which > the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor has become so > divisive that people would consider not eating with family. My guess is that "the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor" is a reference to how the Korban Pesach must be eaten. I certainly can't argue with that, but there is much more to this story. The Pesach 5776 issue of YU's "Torah To-Go" has an article titled " Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach" (the url is too long; just google the title and you'll find it) by Rabbi Yona Reiss, who writes: > The late Belzer Rebbe (Rav Aharon Rokeach zt"l) brings a > different source for the custom of not eating in others' > homes on Pesach, noting that only with respect to Shavuot > and Sukkot does the Torah mention the notion of rejoicing > together with others (Devorim 16:11, 16:14), but not with > respect to Pesach. Therefore the scriptural implication > is that on Pesach there may be a basis for parties to > refrain from joining each other for their meals. BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 19:38:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:38:35 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> `On the matter of Gebrochts, R?MG Rabi wrote in Issue 43 > Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to > make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not > a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. > > RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on > the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. > and in Issue 44 > May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a > custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - > as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. Mori V?Rabbi R? Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to eat soft matzot. The Ramah quotes the minhag that the matzos should be thinner than an etzba ...the soft matzos are thinner just like what color you have on the poroches is not a minhag, it is a matter of taste. Not every little sneeze is considered a minhag. However, if a person descends from chassidishe families and they have a minhag not to eat gebrokts *unless someone should pasken for him that this is a minhag shtus or a minhag b'taus, it would not even help to make a Hatoras nidorim*. Hatoras nidorim for a minhag only works if it is a *personal* minhag. The baal ha'neder has to request from the beis din the ha'tora. *If an entire community has a minhag, you have to get the entire kehilla to be matir the neder. One member of the community cannot be matir the neder on his own*. Just like if a person decides that he does not want to wait six hours between milchig and fleishig, he cannot be matir the neder, *he* is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years ago when the matzohs were much thicker. The concept of dovor sh'bminyan, etc. that even if one lives in a generation when the reason for the takanah no longer applies, the takanah is still binding, only applied to takonos d'rabbonon and *does not apply to minhogim*. The Ramah in his teshuvos writes like this and rashi in the first perek in Beitza writes the same. If I am not mistaken, I think the very last teshuva in Achiezer volume 3 by r. chaim ozer writes the same.? I conclude that we should be much more careful before attempting to extrapolate from Poskim of the enormous stature of Mori V?Rabbi. Dr. Isaac Balbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 22:01:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:01:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Best, Meir G. Rabi On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah > wrote: > : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the > illustration > : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in > force > : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] > > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza > on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for > me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable > hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:28:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:28:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically. And after the kitniyos were cooked in it the issur is automatically batel; the taam of kitniyos in the walls is surely less than 50%! -- 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 Sun May 1 21:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5726D8FF.6020709@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 05:48 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this > way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is > especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. I believe it got started because on Pesach there are so many different standards that it's often difficult to be sure that this is the case. Even if the host has more chumros than the guest, they may be different ones, and there will be something the guest doesn't eat and the host does. Detailed inquiry about these matters may be embarrassing. If the guest is certain that the host's standards are as strict or stricter than his own in all matters, then AFAIK the minhag doesn't apply. -- 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 Mon May 2 03:42:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160502104240.GB10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:01:51PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza : > on Pesach.... :> no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Well it doesn't need to be. Topics drift. However, I would ask whether RHS would compare Ashkenazi matzah styles to fashion rather than minhag if he could not prove there was a time when Ashkenazim too used soft matzos. You were using his idea as an example of minhag requiring a halachic foundation, that the risk gebrochts avoids be a real one. I don't see that. (It would also do wonders to qitniyos if that question were admissible.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:48:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:38:35PM +1000, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Mori V'Rabbi R' Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) : "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to : eat soft matzot.... : he is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to : say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years : ago when the matzohs were much thicker...." Why quote RTG when the Pischei Teshuvah said it first? OTOH, in the same generation, the SA haRav says that gebrochts only makes sense *after* we started counting kneading time toward the 18 min. And as a pragmatic matter, they both were very likely part of the same change in matzah-making norms. (If you have less time to bake matzos now that kneading ate up some of the time, you need thinner matzos.) I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old could the minhag have been? And if so, could RTG's theory be correct even in our day? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:51:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:51:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 05:12:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:12:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I saw somewhere that ein veatlim issur lechatchila doesnt apply to minhagim. Question: can one cook gebrochs on the 7th day of Pesach for the 8th day (for those who dont eat gebrochs 7 days). This was particularly relevant this year when the 8th day was shabbat. --------------------------------- On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 04:52:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57273F64.2010405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:51 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. > > : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're > : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste > : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... > > To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing > something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior > reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. This should be obvious, because if it were not so then it would always be forbidden to cook kitniyos, or anything else that is batel berov, even in keilim designated for this. -- 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 Mon May 2 04:57:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572740B0.9050306@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:48 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's > theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not > causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because > the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- > their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is > no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old > could the minhag have been? It wasn't even a generational change. The Alter Rebbe says it was only "these last twenty years or more", i.e. within his own memory. -- 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 Mon May 2 07:02:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 10:02:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:12 AM 5/2/2016, R. Akiva Miller wrote: >BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a >question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have >legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 07:28:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 08:28:08 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Old French In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at May 2, 2016 03:12:46 am Message-ID: <14621956880.190dB.12358@m5.shachter> > I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to > have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According > to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in > French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be > transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than > Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when > they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on > an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the > focus on the experiential story. > But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After > explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes > (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in > ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for > Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." The French word for "step" is "pas". In Rashi's time the 's' was pronounced. That gives you the first two consonants of the p-s-x root. The third consonant is an aspirate which, although it never drops out in inflected forms like the h does, might still be considered dispensible by an aspirational (sorry, I couldn't resist) etymologist willing to cut corners. It is a bogus albeit tempting etymology, like the ones you see in Hirsch. > A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been > inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but > that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the > question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How > do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? > And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? I can't tell you how the French of Rashi's time referred to Pesax. There are no French translations of the Hebrew Scriptures dating to then. The French Jews probably said "Pesach". That's what Yiddish speakers say today and I have no reason to think that their ancestors did any differently. French Jews nowadays -- who speak, by and large, French, although there are some who speak Arabic among themselves -- also say "Pesach", usually. Sometimes they say "Paque" (circumflex accent on the 'a' deliberately omitted because the Avodah digest software chokes on it, which is unfortunate, because the circumflex, which always indicates a missing 's', would be highly informative if you could see it), which is the correct French word, but it is rare for them to do so. I don't like saying "Paque" because it is also the French word for "Easter" and thus evokes a disagreeable sense of linguistic imperialism, even though the imperialism is almost certainly operating in the other direction here, I would think -- taking a Hirschian risk here, but there are worse people to emulate -- that the French word for "Easter" obviously comes from p-s-x. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:26:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:26:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tenets of faith Message-ID: > (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R > Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes > that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT > actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, > one way or the other.) Raavad : Born : 1125, Narbonne, France Died : 1198, Vauvert, France R, Moshe ben Chasdai Taku: 1250-1290 CE So Raavad couldn't have referred to R Taku -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 08:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57276FE3.4040104@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 08:12 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. Why does it need to be hefsed merubeh. Mechiras chometz is 100% valid, and everyone is entitled to rely on it no matter how easy it would be not to. If people want to be machmir for themselves that's very nice but they have no right to expect other people to follow their crazy chumros, any more than they follow those of other people. > OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. > Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the > supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? It seems to me that this attitude rests on a fujndamental amhoratzus: the idea that chametz she'avar alav hapesach is an inherent issur, an issur cheftza, so that if you hold for some reason that mechiras chometz is somehow flawed then you must hold that to the same extent the food sold is tainted. But chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a kenas on the owner for deliberately or negligently transgressing Bal Yera'eh Uval Yimatzei. Therefore even if you don't wish to rely on mechiras chametz, and destroy all your own chametz rather than sell it, the shopkeeper is not obligated to share your crazy chumra, and when he sold his chametz you must admit that he did so beheter gamur. If so, he doesn't deserve a kenas, so his chametz remains permitted even to you. -- 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 Mon May 2 10:03:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:03:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X isn't good enough". Ben On 5/2/2016 2:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store > can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are > communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these > contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel > its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:35:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim Message-ID: R Isaac, Please provide the references for the Shut Ramah and the Rashi in the first Perek Beitza. As for the Achiezer, that quite clearly supports the assertion that ONLY if the practice of not being MeNaker the hind-quarters is associated with a Halacha can it have any sort of binding power. It is truly confounding to see some people asserting the views of various Rabbanim without ever finding it necessary to actually do more than tell a story or tell us that the Posek said "it" to a friend or "it" was heard directly. For example we just had someone quote RHS saying a Halacha from the Rama, which the Rama does NOT say - this seriously undermines the credibility. Neither should we accept the report that RHS Paskened that those who do not eat Gebrochts require a Pesak that it is a Shtus because Hatarah does not work since a community has followed this practice, and the entire kehilla requires Hatarah. That's like an entire Kehilla following the practice of using royal blue for the Paroches. Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation, is a Dovor ShaBeMinyan, is pretty close to fantasy. Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from stories and hearsay from Poskim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:53:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502165329.GE14957@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:29AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from : stories and hearsay from Poskim. Are you REALLY saying that RIB should not accept an answer he personally received from his own rebbe? Or that we shouldn't accept that he can quote that answer verbatum, albeit with a "(emphasis is mine)"? If that's not sufficient evidence of a person's position, no quote on the list works, and we might as well shut down. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 10:37:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:37:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502173731.GF14957@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:12:10PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can : sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that : don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? Don't buy all chameitz that has been sold, or all chameitz that was "sold" by a store than then proceeded to leave it on the shelves and sell individually over Pesach? The latter is the nearest I've seen in my experience to such communities. After all, it's more ready to conclude that the initial sale of all chameitz was a meaningless asmachta, and not a real sale than it is to conclude the storeowners were selling someone else's merchandise and stealing the profits. But if you mean that people aren't supposed to buy properly sold chameitz, yes that makes no sense -- the storeowner still suffers a hefsed merubah, just days later. In any case, I do not think we still hold that mechiras chameitz requires the hefsed to be merubah. OTOH, it's more than merely a "crazy chumerah", as Zev puts it. According to the Bach (OC 448 "ve'im") mechiras chameitz of the sort where nothing actually is moved to space the nakhri already owns was originally promulgated as a widespread practice specifically for "yayin saraf" dealers, and only because they can't move their full merchandise. (The actual mechanism is in the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6.) Resisting growth of a heter to include boxes we could just throw into the trunk of our car is quite different than "crazy chumerah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:24:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:24:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" mindset). Ben On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus > standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the > would-be guest"? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 01:03 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the > custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after > Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X > isn't good enough". 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how silly you think their reason. 2. As far as I'm concerned the "baked after Pesach" stickers are merely an indication that the product is fresh. -- 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 Mon May 2 12:21:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:21:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> <57279663.5050102@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727A8CE.4040308@zahav.net.il> From: Eli Turkel via Areivim > The following is probably mostly for Israel MO and based on observations > and not statistics > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article by > a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see below) may apply). The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev Shabbat: 1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). 2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza 3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is practiced). So what is the difference in this case? Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? On 5/2/2016 8:03 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how > silly you think their reason. Of course you can't. However, community leaders can decide what message to transmit. I heard Rav Amar state in the strongest terms that there is no benefit to buying chameitz products from a non-Jew (instead of from a Jew who sold his chameitz). He also discouraged looking for the "baked after Pesach" label. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:05:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:05:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! -- 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 Mon May 2 11:21:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279A8F.5020203@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 02:24 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus >> standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >> would-be guest"? > In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this > chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they > didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate > their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at > least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are > (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" > mindset). 1. There's a lot more to standards, especially on Pesach, than which hechsherim one trusts. You might trust more hechsherim than your relatives do, but not use some product from *any* hechsher that they do use, or have some practise at home that they don't. 2. If you are indeed sure that you are not more machmir than them, then the custom of not mixing would not apply in that specific case. The minhag is subject to the guest's discretion, not the host's; all it demands of the hosts is not to take offence. -- 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 Mon May 2 11:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 04:58:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R'MG Rabi has incorrectly assumed that I heard or similar, the words I QUOTED from Mori VRabbi Rav Hershel Schachter. As a rule when I write that it is a quote, it is a quote. I am an academic. In fact, it was an email directly to me verbatim, which I received after Pesach from Mori VRabbi. Again, it is wrong to make suppositions. I did not provide any name in my question to him as that is entirely irrelevant. Regarding your substantive question for the exact sources etc I will ask, however, he is a very busy person effectively also the lone Senior Posek for OU (has Rav Belsky a'h been replaced?) and RIETS as well as his daily shiurim at RIETS and being Rosh Yeshiva and Kollel etc and you will appreciate that his answer to the query may not be immediate. Dr Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 13:07:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:07:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727B36A.7000303@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 03:22 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > On May 3, 2016 4:05 AM, "Zev Sero" > wrote: >> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: >>> Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation >> The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! > Correct, it's predicated upon factually incorrect information However on being challenged he refused to back this claim up. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 14:41:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:41:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can > indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. Zvi Lampel (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) [The attached PDF was identical to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/51283 -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 15:43:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 00:43:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: RAM mentioned that: > last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining > the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and > explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on > Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an > expression of stepping." ... and asked: > How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 > years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? As you yourself wrote earlier in that post, the French call the holiday paques (with an accent circonflexe on the a, but that renders badly on Avodah). It is derived from the Latin, like the Spanish pascua, too. I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke of genius that serves its purpose well. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 22:27:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 01:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: <64eee8.a68b9f3.445990cc@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach >....Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. ... [--RAM] And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL >>>>>> You don't inspect the host's kitchen because you don't eat in his house! That's the point! Chassidim and others have this minhag of "not mishing" on Pesach --" not mixing" our meals with other families. This custom of not eating at other people's houses on Pesach has its source in this, precisely: the desire not to insult anyone, not to embarrass anyone and not to hurt anyone's feelings on this of all holidays, the one holiday when we are all more careful than usual about what we will and will not eat. The "unfriendly" chassidishe minhag has a very friendly corollary, at least in chutz la'aretz where we have two days of yom tov: On the last day of Pesach we /davka/ go out to eat or invite others to our homes and make a point of "mishing." If you don't have anyone over for a meal at least you go out visiting other people's homes in the afternoon, and make a point of eating something there. It's sort of like a sukka hop, you try to visit a few different homes and also host a few different people in your home. At least this was the minhag in my family growing up and among the people I knew in my youth. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 23:35:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >>Two bundles of goods >>may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. >>So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God >>really want that? [--RDR] Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such natural evils. Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Properly speaking "evil" only refers to something that has a moral dimension. The question of "Why does G-d allow evil?" has an obvious answer -- to allow scope for bechira, for free will. That doesn't fully answer the question, of course. We see many cases where He thwarts the nefarious plots of our enemies, which leaves us with aching questions in those cases when He seemingly stands by and does /not/ thwart their plots -- the Holocaust being the most wrenching example. There are a lot of answers but perhaps none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be called evil at all (unless you want to impute evil motives to the Borei c'v!). Rather, here the question is "Why is there suffering in the world?" This is a different question from the question of why does He allow evil people to commit evil deeds. Again there are many different answers, some of which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as well as Divine reasons we can't think of. "Evil" and "suffering" can overlap, as when evil people cause other people to suffer, but they are still two different categories. BTW the idea that a benevolent G-d "couldn't" or "wouldn't" do this or that is an arrogant and ignorant idea, the product of puny human minds. And compared to our Creator, even the most brilliant human mind is puny. Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I did ask Him to take them away. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 04:10:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: I wrote: > This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of > the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? > > Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of > the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? #1) In the article cited, much was made of an incident when Rava went to visit Rav Nachman, who was Rava's rebbe, and was thus presumably at least as strict as Rava. (See the article for more information, and for various ways of understanding that gemara.) #2) I, personally, am not very knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of this practice, such as who follows it, or to what extent they follow it. That's whay I can't answer your question by pointing to people who won't even eat in their parents' homes; I have no idea whether or not this practice really goes that far. HOWEVER, I do presume that the author of the article is familiar with these things, and near the beginning of the article, he writes: > perhaps the most intriguing of Pesach stringencies is the widespread > minhag not to eat anyone else's food during the Pesach holiday, even > if the other person keeps their chumros. It seems from this that Rabbi Reiss *is* aware of people who avoid eating other food, even when they do know that their standards have not been otherwise lessened. There can be many ways of knowing this, without "make[ing] an inspection of the host's kitchen and review[ing] all of the products he uses ... insulting to the host", such as when they are close family members, or friends, and/or the host actually invites the guest to examine his products and practices. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 06:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:43:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah Message-ID: The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon are factually correct? Those I have communicated with seem to be incapable or unwilling. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:20:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:43:08PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, : anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon : are factually correct? Which fact are you not sure of: 1- That until a couple of decades before the teshuvah people did not count kneading time toward the kedei hilukh mil, and then people (at least around Easter Europe) did? 2- That rushing the kneading because it now has to fit within the mil along with baking time would increase the chance that there was unkneaded flour on or in the matzah? 3- That the Baal haTanya is brighter than you, and should be second-guessed with care? Even if someone known to be brilliant makes a mistake, you know it's not likely to be a trivial one. 4- Or, the original topic.... That I would find it unlikely that RMF would consider a minhag endorsed by the SA haRav should be dropped without very strong motive? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:28:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:28:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products; e.g, my wife makes mayonnaise for Pesach, although I no longer churn butter, as he did -- yeridas hadoros): I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.. I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no alternative. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:40:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503144014.GA18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:43:39AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also : be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that : gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the : meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke : of genius that serves its purpose well. Much of what gets called "chassidishe Torah" is similar -- it's not a real answer to the question posed, but it is real Torah. Presented in a way that makes a roshem on a listener. As for etymologies, I think there is also a gray area. "Yarmulka" is a term in a number of Slavic languages for whatever cap the locals wore. But if no one had created the folk etymology of "yarei Malka", would the term have become as widespread or as long-lived as it did? Historically, the name Shneiur is from Signor or perhaps Spanish Sen~or, or most likely the original Latin "Senior", which means "Zaqein", with all the implications of sagicity. But I think more Shneiurs today are named for the shnei or of Shabbos licht. Especially since that's why R Aharon and Rn Rivqah Chanah Perel Kotler chose the name for their son, born Friday evening. (BTW, RSK was a dapper looking man in his Chevron days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Kotler#/media/File:Rabbi_Shneur_Kotler.jpg Found it while looking to confirm the story about when he was born.) OTOH, Marche-shvan vs "Mar Cheshvan" has halachic import, and one cannot let the folk etymology cause people to write the wrong thing on a gett; nor to forget that the month names were from galus Bavel, and not related to the Hebrew word "mar". But in general, folk etymologies too have causitive power. (It's just that in my last example, I think we need to resist it.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:09:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:09:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> References: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160503150952.GB18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:38AM -0400, Rn Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without : Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents : for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. : : But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects : and other such natural evils. : I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Yes, but fixing my misspeech doesn't change my point. To apply the correction: Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. : none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that : we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. Does that necessarily mean we cannot know His Goals either, or only how they play out in practice? IOW, perhaps we can conclude that HYashem wants a world of hatavah, including being meitiv us with the joy of being able to be meitivim ourselves, without knowing why that means He would choose providing Tov in one case and why He left us on our own in another. : The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be : called evil at all... True, but if we correct my language, then the question too needs correction: How is the existence of *suffering* consistent with the Existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent G-d? : which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of : the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as : well as Divine reasons we can't think of. Including free will. For all I know, Hashem lets certain diseases foster because He Wants to give us the opportunity to cure them. That does not address His Choice of victims, though. I suggested four answers to theodicy, keneged arba banim: The chakham doesn't really answer it, he instead asks "How does Hashem want me to respond?" The rasha gets yisurim as punishment. In the Haggadah we tell him that its not the tragedy that is leading him to rejecting G-d its his rejection of G-d that led him to the tragedy. The tam gets yisurim shel ahavah. He didn't do anything wrong, but he is shaken out of the rut that keeps him from trying to be a chakham. And the she'eino yodea' lish'ol gets the life he does because, well, there are times where the thing we want is a greater nisayon, than the situation we find tragic. And if we are not up to the challenge, if its a test that we couldn't pass, G-d doesn't make us face it. I say it better and with more backing at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pesach-5761-the-four-sons-confront-tragedy But my point in my earlier post wasn't whether or not theodicy is answeable, but that the issue of theodicy was simply ignored by the philosophy professor giving the online course I pointed to. Which, in turn, was why I thought that a translation of something R Sherky said to university students (repeated from Twitter) requires more examiunation of the original. To repeat (since I find this topic more useful than trying to answer tzadiq vera lo): : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? "Can't find"? This professor of philosophy missed a huge theological topic. My guess is that "lo nimtza" was translated overly literally and RYS was replying to questioned for which no answer exists. And yes, someone should be intellectually honest enough to give up his religion if it really were disproven. An impossible hypothetical (we know a Torah-follower's religion won't ever really be disproven, beyond minor misunderstood peratim); so not very meaningful, but not something it would shock me to hear a rav say. : Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. : But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, : a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, : and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I : really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained : from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I : did ask Him to take them away. I said something similar recently about "lir'os es atzmo ke'ilu hu yatza miMitzrayim" . I wrote about how the RBSO put into process even before I was born events that caused my lymphoma to be diagnosed while still in stage 1, BH and ba"h. A rare form of lymphoma that (as of 2010) had only afflicted two other people, both rescue workers who helped look for their comrade's remains in the weeks after 9/11. Here's just the post-script: To be intellectually honest: The story loses some of its impact if you think about Office Ryan and Firefighter Endicott's families, who lost their love ones specifically because they were determined to give other rescue workers' families the closure of being able to make a funeral. On 9/11 itself, for every story retold of someone who was spared being there because they were out doing some mitzvah is a story of someone who seems no less deserving who was killed in the attack. Every life has its own story. I cannot know G-d's calculus in my own, never mind in others'. But the mystery of tzadiq vera lo (why the righteous suffer) doesn't free me from feeling grateful for the good in my life (hakaras hatov) and feeling thankful to the ones -- or in this case the One -- who provide it (hoda'ah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503151406.GC18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:28:43PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which : had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products... : I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree : of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted : practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no : alternative. Which is the only way the minhag could be non-offensive. I am reminded of the rav who establishes a policy not to eat in any mispallel's home, so that no one is offended by their rabbi having to judge their home's kashrus as insufficient. Still, I think it would be elegant if people who have the minhag of misht zikh nisht adopt the minhag of Maimouna. We might not be able to eat together on Pesach, but let's all share the simchas Isru Chag! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 10:08:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160503170842.GD18204@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:46:56PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law : of the excluded middle. : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle However, not only does RYBS's discussion of bein hashemashos really rely on defying the law of contradiction by saying "both" rather than the excluded middle's "something in between", so does his invocation of "almanas isa" and "isa lashon safeiq hu" -- safeiq is a dough. For that matter, the same could be said of erev (although RYBS didn't) -- an irbuvia of day and night. So I think that RYBS actually meant that halakhah had no law of contradiction. Which may be a consequence of allowing middle values between yes and no, I haven't found it spelled out anywhere. BTW, the notion that a tenai needs to be said in both positive and negative is also relevant, as only saying "I promise to do X if Y" is insufficient if Y could be both true and false or somewhere between true and false -- in those cases, whether or not I commit to doing X is ambiguous. Eg "I promise to do X if the next person to enter the room is tall" would lead to a she'eilah if the person walking in is a 5'11" American man (where Google the average is 5'10"). "Tall" is a non-boolean predicate -- a person could be somewhat tall, and not just because it's a matter of opinion, but between there is a gray area about the bottom of the set. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:19:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 01:19:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I am seeking the facts that the Teshuvah employs to support a Halachic ruling that Gebrochts is Assur. so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - 1] until a couple of decades beforehand kneading time was not included in the kedei hilukh mil time 2] this reduced production time created a credible risk of flour remaining in the baked Matzah? I am nowhere near the lofty heights of the BaAl HaTanya. But I am commanded, as is all of BNY, to learn and question and as R Ch Voloshiner says [Paskens?] we are not permitted to accept a ruling or a Peshat if there are questions that remain unanswered. It seems that we are having a dispute about RMF arguing with a Minhag endorsed by the SA HaRav. I propose that since Gebrochts is without Halachic foundation, it does not require Hatarah. Others think this is impossible since the SH HaRav endorses Gebrochts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:55:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:55:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160503185522.GA28828@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:19:27AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 . (Same as when we had this same conversation 3 years ago.) Twenty years is mentioned on 476, the paragraph that beging "Ve'af" -- "...ad shemiqarov zeh esrim shanah o yotseir, nishpatah zehirus zu beYisrael qedoshim, lemaheir me'od me'od belishah..." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 20:12:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5728E9FB.8010609@zahav.net.il> A close friend told me that he his uncle (and family) would come to his father's home for seder (in Poland before the war), bring his own food and table cloth, and by doing this was considered to be meiqil. Ben On 5/3/2016 4:28 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on > Pesach, unless there was no alternative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 09:42:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jonathan Traum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> Message-ID: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> > Lisa Liel wrote: >>> According to >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >>> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's >> berakhah >> of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw >> from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? I can't say with any authority what was in Yaakov Avinu's thoughts there, but lion imagery in the ancient world certainly does seem to predate him. On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > ... > But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's > question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves > are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The king of the wild animals is the lion..." Jonathan Traum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:12:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah Message-ID: In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on the other. Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from joining together for a meal 2) RSZA always took simchat shabbat/yomtov into account in his piskei halacha. A rabbi who is machmir not to allow using a shabbat elevator may be forcing someone who lives on the 30th floor to spend every shabbat without a minyan and without any company and certainly without oneh shabbat. RSZA was an advocate of tzomet because he felt it important to help especially the disadvantaged. Thus, he felt it important to invent a wheelchair good for invalids that can be used on shabbat 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also important even when it relies on DNA evidence. This is just a sampling of many areas where some poskim try and be conservative while RMA insists that just blindly doing the old thing is not necessarily the conservative or macmir way. His favorite analogy is a group of people who live in the tropics and wear swimwear. Because of circumstances they move to a colder area. There now arises a dispute should they continue to wear swimwear because thats what their ancestors wore or do they change to warmer clothing. The change is also meant to be conservative: the ancestors wore clothing that matched the climate and so they should wear clothing that match the clothing. The reformists change clothing simply because they dont care what the ancestors wore -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 13:15:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 16:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> Message-ID: <572906F0.5020105@sero.name> On 05/03/2016 12:42 PM, Jonathan Traum via Avodah wrote: > On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> >But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's >> >question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves >> >are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? > ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The > king of the wild animals is the lion..." Yes, it does now. As the result of this discussion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 14:45:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:45:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <000801d1a585$16ecdbf0$44c693d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RET wrote > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article > by a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel And RBW replied: >RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see >below) may apply). >The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev >Shabbat: >1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). >2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza >3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. >Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. >Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is >practiced). So what is the difference in this case? >Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? Of course, this is just a reiteration of the discussion we had last year - here is my post. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n069.shtml#10 The positions cited here appear to be taken directly from the Rav Poelim. See the citation there regarding the issur of handling food on fast days. >Ben Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 06:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos Message-ID: RBen Waxman cited the following: "This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issue." Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 05:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:04:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] women cutting hair in the omer Message-ID: I just saw that ROY paskens that women are allowed to cut their cut during the sefirah. Does anyone know if this is widely accepted? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 14:43:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:43:42 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Avoid situations that embarrass In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline. A story that displays a slightly different perspective - the visitor who insisted on drinking his tea in the host's Succah when the host who was not enjoying the best of health was entertaining the guest in his house. The host accompanied his guest explaining to the now uncomfortable guest, I am exempt from the mitzvah of Succah but obligated in the mitzvah of Hachnossas Orchim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 17:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160505004747.GB22983@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:34:09PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The : Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish : Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside : world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to : others subunits (e.g. ethnic). I am curious to see that article, because I would have thought the causality was the reverse. The Rama knew of an Ashkenazi mesorah that had numerous differences with Sepharadi pesaq since well before the SA. It was on that basis thyat he was able to categorize the SA as "their" rulings. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 11th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 strict justice? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 04:50:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:50:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would > be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in > the universe at all. > > But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. > Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence not a real good at all. But suppose we leave the world of mussar, where my goal is to grow spiritually by becoming a better person, and improving the relationship between myself and Hashem. Instead, let's focus on getting more social. It's not that I want to improve myself, but that I want to do things that other people will benefit and get pleasure from. In a world where people are busy interacting, but the laws of nature prohibit Nazis, the problem is not that good doesn't *exist*. The problem is that good isn't recognized or appreciated. Everyone is always doing nice things to everyone else, so much so that the beneficiaries don't notice it. Not because they are ungrateful, but because they literally don't notice it -- they have nothing to compare it to. This is how the world runs. What else might one expect? And THAT's why there is "no real good in the universe at all." Ad caan, RMB's reisha. But this only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Evil -- or at least the potential for it -- is necessary so that we can appreciate the good. What about congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering? My first reaction is to give the same answer as above: No one will appreciate good health unless bad health is a possibility. And then I feel ashamed of my insensitivity, my hardheartedness, my callousness. How can I not cry for the babies struggling in pain, just so I can score some points in this discussion? But, truth be told, that insensitivity reared its head many paragraphs ago, when we first contemplated "a world without Nazis". Are the victims of "naturally caused suffering" entitled to more consideration than the victims of Nazi-caused suffering? I don't think so. My heart goes out to both of them, to all of them, and I feel guilty, wondering about where my heart is when I thank G-d for the good He has given me. I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 20:02:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 05:02:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> On 5/3/2016 8:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on > the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on > the other. > > Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) > > 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be > machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without > kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from > simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from > joining together for a meal. If the parents of a Sefardi son in law > can provide him with halaq meat 52 weeks out of a year, he can deal > with their rice issue one week a year. I know that I sound like a broken record but . . . We have a long history of chumrot in kashrut and a long history of dealing with them. Kintiyot can be dealth with, halachakly and culinarily, just like almost all of these issues. Having an in law with food allergies is going to present much more of a challenge to a host than having an in law who doesn't eat rice. > > > 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most > halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is > overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity > might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone > agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA > points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as > inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also > important even when it relies on DNA evidence. > For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:08:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:08:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: yom hazikaron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the importance of standing during the siren on yom hazikaron by Rav Stav (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=4174 on aveilut vs chol hamoed during sefira by Rav Cherlow (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=5629 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:20:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 18:20:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572B72D1.2030303@zahav.net.il> Rav Tawil was basing himself on a psak given by Rav Ovadia Yosef, tz"l, which is summarized here: http://halachayomit.co.il/he/Default.aspx?HalachaID=3938 KT Ben On 5/4/2016 3:26 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > ? ? ? Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet > repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, > even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would > seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. > ? > EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:15:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:15:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben _____________________________________________ IMHO DNA is a real Pandora's box which it seems that poskim are taking an approach that to an outsider might be viewed as pragmatic (vs intellectually mandated) by accepting it as a secondary sirgn but not primary so as to specifically not get into the parentage issue. What will happen when everyone's dna/genetic map is available feom a simple stick test? 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:24:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:24:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1255?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=96_=EE=F1=E5?= =?windows-1255?b?+OQg4fnh5fIg4Of4IPTx5w==?= Message-ID: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160505154013.GF22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:50:01AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change : anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics : categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind : to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. I am not in your target audience, as I am happy with my current answer and thus probably too closed minded on this question to be influenced, but... : RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he : free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then : whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not : the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence : not a real good at all... Not my intent. Let me explain what I was trying to say from a different direction. What makes free will possible? The fact that we can think about thinking. Bechira chofshi and being aware of one's own thoughts and feelings (or a subset of them) go hand-in-hand. When we think about and make decisions based on that metacognizent "inputs" we are able to change how we think and truly exercise BC. I think this underlize REED's concept of a nequdas habechirah. It is only at the "battlefront" between two warring desires/drives that BC comes into play because it is only there that the decision happens slow even to occur consciously. You might recall that when we discussed tza'ar baalei chaim (in at least 2 iterations), I suggested that while animals feel pain, they have no "I" about which they could think "I am in pain". Pain, but without a critical element that turns it into true suffering. I gave a neurological argument -- animals lack the part of prefrontal cortext we use to do metacognizance, so why assume they can? Maybe when it comes to animals, the Behaviorists are right. But I also made a hashkafic argument. If a thinking being could be aware of the thinking itself, and think about thinking, it would have free will. Since only people have BC, which in the opinion of many (including the Meshekh Chokhmah) is that very tzelem E-lokim, they can't be self-aware of their thought. Pain as a stimulus away from something, but not "Oy am I in pain!" of true suffering on a human level. So I was making a philosophical point about the goodness. Not that it lacks worth of purpose, but the ability to enjoy good and the ability to make decisions go hand-in-hand. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:48:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:48:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160505154808.GG22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:02:38AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be : declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth : it? Mamzeirus is not a good example for a general discussion of chumeros. Kivan denitma nitma. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that we are to ignore most sefeiqos -- safeiq mamzer in a yichus-ly kosher community, or a mamzer in a safeiq community. (See for a nice discussion.) I think it would be assur to check mamzeirus using DNA, except in those few cases where we otherwise are chosheish for the safeiq anyway, like a shetuqi or asufi. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim Message-ID: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> H/T Mosaic Magazine See : Bible Odyssey Who Were the Sadducees? by Michael L. Satlow ... The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq, the name of the high priest at the time of King David (1Kings 1:39). Later sources also link the Sadducees to the priesthood (for example, Acts 4:1). However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. In the uproar that ensued, a Sadducee convinced Hyrcanus to abandon the Pharisees for the Sadducees. Whether true or not, this story might point to the Sadducees' origin as a political party allied with the Hasmoneans. Josephus tantalizingly mentions that the Sadducees ascribe authority to Scripture, not to the ancestral traditions handed down by the Pharisees: ... I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion i a dichotomy. Also, what kind of news is in that the Chashmonaim were in league with the Tzeduqim? Regardless of Josephus's story, why wouldn'tthe family that held the power of both Kohein Gadol and Melekh want to deprecate any form of Judaism that would make them share power with the rabbinate? Can the more historically informed please comment if this post is a non-story (which finding it in Mosaic Magazine led me to doubt) or what the chiddush is here? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:55:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:55:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=E2=80=93_=D7=9E?= =?utf-8?b?16HXldeo15Qg15HXqdeR15XXoiDXkNeX16gg16TXodeX?= In-Reply-To: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> References: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <572B7B0D.3050906@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 10:24 AM, Lawrence Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see > http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e 1) Every Ashkenazi siddur says that in summer we say vesein brocho and (in places where it's customary) morid hatol, and in winter we say tal umotor and mashiv horuach. Since we are now saying the former, it is summer, and wishing each other a good summer is therefore appropriate. 2) There is no pressure on anyone to bake a shlissel challah. The blogger is engaging in a fantasy so he can rant about it. Rather, every year we are subjected to ranting from opponents of this custom who can't bear the thought that some people do have it. The blogger has his mesorah, and good on him for adhering to it, but it is irrelevant to the vast majority of us who do not share it. Those who don't have this particular custom of are free not to do it, and nobody will denounce them for it; but they must have the same respect for those who do it, whether because their ancestors did it as far back as anyone knows, or because they heard about it last week and decided it sounded like a nice thing to do. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 10:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:19:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572B80AB.3050808@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 12:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. He was not accused of being a mamzer but a chalal, because his mother had once been kidnapped and was thus unfit to be married a kohen. We don't need to go to Josephus for this story, it's a braisa in Kiddushin 66a. > I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually > led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion > is a dichotomy. The article makes the same point: "In antiquity, there was no neat division between politics and religion". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 12:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:41:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <520b4de4-831a-8f00-6b0d-1cd935504656@starways.net> On 5/5/2016 7:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > See : ... > by Michael L. Satlow ... > ... > The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the > Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term > Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq... The myth that the Tzedukim got their name from Tzadok the Kohen Gadol has zero basis to it. Except maybe the quote from Acts, which has no weight. The origin of the Tzedukim appears in Avot d'Rabbi Natan, where we find that the eponymous Tzadok was one of the talmidim of Antigonus Ish Socho. > However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not > as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus > mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high > priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer]... Also, despite Josephus's claims, the accusation wasn't that he was a mamzer; it was that he was a chalal. The article is a non-story. Lisa [To be fair without bothering to post a full reply for something off-topic: The original had a word I wasn't comfortable repeating on-list, starts with a "b", so I assumed the usual back-translation to the Hebrew. I have no idea what Josephus actually wrote, nor do I expect a Xian to bother explaining chalal rather than use a general term for what used to be called an "illegitimate" child. So I don't know if it's Josephus's claims that's off or a miscommunication caused by my trying to be overly frummy. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:53:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know how you can say that. Admittedly, the Creator apparently wanted a world in which there are both Nazis /and/ birth defects, since that's the world He created. But there is a HUGE difference between the two -- between the pain caused by evil people through their own free will, and the suffering that occurs as the result of disease and other natural causes. One thought experiment will illustrate the difference. Imagine a mother whose child dies as the result of a birth defect. Let's even say the child dies after a period of pain and suffering. Now imagine another mother whose child dies because a Nazi snatched the child from her arms and killed the child in some sadistic way, in front of the mother's eyes. Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:29:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 06:29:53 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? or within it? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:22:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:22:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when > there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. > Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF > Every case is judged on its own. I was just an eid to a get of the sort, where certain kullot in the berurei sheimot were accepted because it was such a kind of get lechumra. In other situations, we may be quicker to allow a kitvu uttenu for a civil marriage divorce. As I said, every case is judged on its own. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:42:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:42:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrot Message-ID: In light of the comments of Rabbi Folger and others let me restate my opinion of chumrot. There are several levels of chumrot and kulot 1) The chumrah is personal and doesn't affect anyone else - perfectly OK but one shouldn't gloat or look down on those who don't accept the chumra 2) At the other extreme are things like monetary manners where every chumra for one side is a kula for the other side 3) For things in between one has to compare the chumra to the "price" being paid So for kitniyot - the prohibition is relatively mild but OTOH doing without the specific kitniyot is not a major deal either (in most cases) I personally get annoyed at husbands that won't carry (or push the carriage) even with an eruv but the wife does everything. I am not sure how much the women really volunteer. In any case the hardship is relatively mild (again in most cases) The harder cases are where the prohibition is more severe but the effects are more severe Examples from before include shabbat problems that might prevent one from leaving home every shabbat and ruining on a long term basis oneg shabbat. As Rabbi Folger points out various cases of gittin. Also cases involving DNA or other forms of controversial evidence. The main point R Avraham was making is that rabbis who take a "conservative: stance are not always being machmir since the effect on others may be severe. At times the more innovative approach may be the real conservative way. i.e. it saves the principle of the halacha rather than just some formality which is no longer relevant. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 07:59:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:59:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah Message-ID: RET wrote: > 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt > that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out > that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when > they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects > many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. Actually, that simply doesn't reflect the most widespread position on civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 05:34:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:34:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula Message-ID: <> Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one can't accept it in many other cases -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:14:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:14:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of > divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the > key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. > Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single > case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to > avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a > proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. > -- > Arie Folger, >> > chumrot that don't have side effects are fine. As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 16:29:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Schlissel Challah Message-ID: <20160506232927.GA27784@aishdas.org> Since everyone has to have a schlissel chalah post... Really I think it is about sources of yeast right after Pesach. There was no starter dough, so people would use beer foam. Beer foam yeast is too acrive for good dough. Fortunately, iron slows down yeast action. A key is a small convenient piece of iron to throw into the mix. But it is common for minhagim to be born from inventing reasons for things people already do. In this case... It relates to the key of rain and finances, described in Taanis 2, one of the three (or two of the four) keys that Hashem never delegates. If so, it is a reminder just as the wheat comes in, and. in the lands Ashkenazim were living in too. (The fresh grass which becomes a milk abundance just on time for Shavuos and Wittesmontag.) A reminder from Whom the spring wealth comes. And to thank Him accordingly, rather than to take credit. If so, ironically (for the naysayers), the custom is all about how wealth comes directly from G-d, not via angels, spiritual mechanisms, or tricks. Do you have a problem with dipping an apple in honey and other such simanei milsa of Rosh haShanah? Those too are symbols. The problem isn't with schlissel chalah. If people observed the custom for the kinds of reasons listed in this post, there would be nothing to object to. The problem I have is that it seems to have caught on beyond the original community because of people having magical thinking, trying to get HQBH to give them their wealth through segulah instead of (rather as inspiration for) the hard and long work of earning reward for being a better Jew. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 13th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 necessary for a good relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 14:26:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 00:26:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? Message-ID: I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). Shavua Tov, Hodesh Tov! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 19:49:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572EA93A.7030509@sero.name> On 05/07/2016 05:26 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). I am looking at a block of Tenuva salted butter, which bears the mehadrin hechsher of Tenuva's own rabbi, R Weitman, and also the hechsherim of the OU and Chug Chasam Sofer. I assume Chug Chasam Sofer is a mehadrin-only hechsher. Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk. It's also available in 10g and 200g with the mehadrin hechsher, and also in 10g and 100g with the hechsher of Badatz Edah Hacharedit. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=581 Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=582 However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to have this problem. http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/salted-butter http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/butter -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 21:35:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 07:35:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages > with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk... > > Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and > only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk... > > However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to > have this problem.... Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 22:00:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 01:00:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> On 05/08/2016 12:35 AM, Simon Montagu wrote: > > Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? Well, I don't see how it can be a halachic issue, since they do sell it with the mehadrin hechsher in the USA, to consumers whose kashrut standards are presumably the same those of Israeli mehadrin consumers. Nor, given the size and internal diversity of the Israeli mehadrin market, and its overlap with the USA one, can it plausibly be attributed to a cultural difference. What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available in 100g packs, in either country. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 8 20:36:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 06:36:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> Message-ID: <87b8dde5-91ed-0b4e-3d8f-268d85c4c13f@starways.net> On 5/8/2016 8:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available > in 100g packs, in either country. > The idea of salted butter was originally to be able to sell the butter longer. If the butter has gone off (rancid) a little, salting it hides that. So a lot of people refuse to buy salted butter, figuring that if it's unsalted, they *know* whether it's good or not, and they can always salt it themselves if they want. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 04:36:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:36:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RavSharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< ... Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. >>> The difference that I see, is that in one case the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards Hashem, and in the second case, the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards both Hashem and the Nazi. But as I understand this conversation, we are discussing theodicy, which is the question of "How can a good God allow such a thing to happen?" And in that regard I see no difference between the two cases. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 10:37:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160509173704.GA27325@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 05:41:13PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger :> The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can :> indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. : : I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... : where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in : fact it implies the opposite Then why would you think tht was the reference? Pesach 30 is where he discusses zeh le'umas zeh, so mybe they're talking about the implied lack of a law of contradiction? (Ie that creation comes in paradoxical pairs.) YOu are asking for a source for something I have been repeating since before its appearance in Avodah vol 1, something I learne from R' Aryeh Kaplan. Sources, even my notebook from those days, are not at hand. But I'm working on it -- al titya'esh. Actually, I am on the hunt for where I saw the point in seifer haHigayon. The Ramchal defined higayon as a tool the seikhel was given. I am just looking for where I found it explicit that logic was created for people. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 15:52:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi writes: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface > which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." > > May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? > > Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour > WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the kneading specifically. Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:02:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160510010206.GA9905@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 6:52pm EDT, R Akiva Miller: : I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then : flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, : I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the : kneading specifically. : Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? : I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 2:55pm EDT, I wrote: > Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos > Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 > . -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57313304.90006@sero.name> On 05/09/2016 06:52 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Teshuvah #6, in the Shu"t at the back of volume 6. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=486 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=487 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 20:09:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:09:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: Many thanks to R' Zev Sero and R' Micha Berger for sending me links to the HebrewBooks.org edition, and at almost the same instant. R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a > little flour on their surface which is a consequence > of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." I responded: > I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in > the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. > If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the > general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the > kneading specifically. I now suspect that the situation was a bit different than I had imagined. I would like to suggest that the matzos described by the Alter Rebbe had plain flour through and through, as a result of the dough being dry and hard, and difficult to knead, exactly as described. But the Rebbe complained only about the flour on the outside, and I suspect that this is because it presents a bigger halachic problem than the flour on the inside. I first got this feeling in the paragraph "V'hinei eineinu", though I can't point to any specific words where he might have said this. But in the paragraph "V'af d'haMagen Avraham", he is machmir on one who crumbles his matza into the soup, but he is meikil for one who puts matza balls into the soup. What I translated as "matza balls" are, more precisely in his words, "ground matza that they make into rounds (agulim)", and the room for leniency is because it can be judged to be a ta'aroves. I'm going into some detail here, because he is NOT talking about crumbling some matza into a dry bowl, which would contain a mixture of matza meal and flour, and the flour would lose its identity to the matza meal before it ever got wet. No, that's not what he is talking about. He makes explicit reference to these balls which were made previously, and were added to the soup afterward, I am at a loss to explain the advantage of these matza balls over one who crumbles his matza directly into the soup. The only advantage I see is that one who crumbles the matza into his soup is making chometz personally, whereas in the other case the chometz was made in the kitchen when the matza balls were fashioned. (Footnote 45 there might be saying something similar.) Be that as it may, it leads me to a very wild guess that when the dough is not kneaded well, it will have flour on the inside, and although one might think that this flour is subject to chimutz, the truth is that there is some room for leniency because that flour is batel to the matza itself. However, this leniency applies only to the flour inside the matza, and not to the flour on the outer surface of the matza. Again, this paragraph is only a wild guess that I offer to the group. (On a side point, I'd like to ask about the modern "hard (kasheh)" dough that the Alter Rebbe described. Why was it hard? I can understand spending less time kneading it so that it can be rushed into the oven, but the Rebbe seems to feel that the consistency of the dough changed too. Why would anyone think that using less water is a good idea? Kneading a bread dough is hard work, and it seems like common sense to me that if we want to knead it well, you'd use *more* water, not less. Does extra water accelerate the chimutz, independently of the temperature of that water?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 03:50:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:50:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach?" The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz that was sold to a goy in Israel because none of the hechsherim (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one is checking that it is true. See for example http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X9_D8LFI5O8/UWEoF_JIlgI/AAAAAAAAAc4/XDKyPFsMN7Q/s1600/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%94+%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8+%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.jpg Some people rely on checking product codes which tells them when the product was made. However, this is not that useful. All it says is that the product was made after Pesach. However, every Chometz product has chometz ingredients in it (at least flour which is most probably chometz because it was washed) and the consumer has no way of knowing when the chometz ingredients were made and who owned over them over Pesach. For example even if you only buy cookies that were made after Pesach you have no idea what flour was used. It is very possible/probable that the flour used to make the cookies was chometz and was sold for Pesach. Som people only eat things that were made with flour that was fround after Pesach. However there a problem with this as well. Flour in Israel is very low in gluten and therefore won't rise well unless gluten is added. All bakeries add gluten to the flour in all baked goods. There is no gluten produced in Israel, it is all imported mostly from Germany, France, and China. Gluten by definition is chamtez gamur . Because it needs to be imported gluten must be SOLD to a Goy over Pessach; unless the bakeries want to close shop for a few weeks waiting for a new shipment. Since they start making bread literally a few hours after Pesach is over they must be using gluten that they sold to a goy. Therefore, even if the bread says baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach, the gluten was most definitely sold and therefore you are relying on the sale to a goy. In other words they are pulling the wool over your eyes. They say that it was baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach but conveniently leave out the bit about gluten that was sold. (source http://www.bhol.co.il/9196/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.html ) In short, this is a chumra that makes people feel frum but has no basis in halacha and is in fact not really possible to keep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 04:13:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:13:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Message-ID: R' Elazar Teitz wrote: "I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.." On the other hand there is a famous story (printed in the Brisker Haggada and in HaRav MiBrisk) about the Brisker Rav visiting R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach in Vilna in 1941. The Brisker Rav thought that the sugar in Vilna had Kitniyos mixed in and therefore did not use it on Pesach. However, when the Brisker Rav visited R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach, R' Chaim Ozer served him tea with sugar which the Brisker Rav accepted and drank. Afterwards, someone (his son?) asked him why did he drink the tea with the sugar if there was a chashash of kitniyos in the sugar? He answered that not eating kitniyos is a minhag but being mevaze a talmid chacham is an issur d'oraysa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 08:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:52:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573203A1.3050503@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz > that was sold to a goy in Israel//because none of the hechsherim > (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) > hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when > things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the > manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one > is checking that it is true. Since it's only a chumra, why not just trust the manufacturer? Most manufacturers are honest, and if you happen to come across one who isn't you haven't really lost anything. In any case, while there are of course those who look for the "baked after Pesach" label for kashrus reasons, I assume that *most* people who look for this label do so as a guarantee of freshness. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 12:20:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 22:20:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:35:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:35:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f382b3d9eba7690e3482efc18d4e958@aishdas.org> On 2016-05-10 5:31 pm, H Lampel wrote: > Any luck with this? > > Zvi > On 5/2/2016 5:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. > > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. > > Zvi Lampel > (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) The truth is, this machloqes is something I was repeating since R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l was alive. (I mention it in Avodah vol. 1.) And RAK's presentation on logic that made it to print (years before my NCSY days) does not mention the Ramchal's side. Well, it does mention Derekh Hashem 1:1:5 but in the context of one of the paradoxes he's trying to resolve, not about allowing for paradoxes. So I'm trying to dig up an old memory of his stated source. I was thinking of a few places in sefer haHigayon and Derekh Tevunos, which I am still looking for. The Ramchal describes higayon and tevunah as tools Hashem created for a sekhel to use. I thought it was the haqdamah, but since not... The Maharal's model of machloqesin (on Avos 5:17) allows for paradoxes to result when we try to map the supernal Emes to olam hazeh. This point is not THAT relevant, but it's about machloqesin (perhaps only a subset, see end of Be'er 7 which says not every machloqes is eilu va'eilu), and I am writing to the Baal haDynamics. Anyway, it's not really a statement about logic, any more than saying that two shadows of a 3D object can differ and yet both be real shadows. (BTW, the copy of Dynamics in the beis medrash at Yeshiva of Greater Washington is well-worn and due for replacement or rebinding. I was just in the neighborhood for Grandparents' Day at my grandchildren's school.) I did post on-list (to appear in the next digest) that the nearest _pesach _30 gets to denying logic is that "zeh le'umas zeh" denies the law of contradiction. Which doesn't mean Hashem is above logic; it could just mean Hashem's logic isn't the classical one. Which I pointed out in a few halachic examples -- safeiq lashon isah hu appears to mean that a doubt is a coexistence of conflicting states, the need for a tenai to be in both positive and negative, etc... _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 Tue May 10 13:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:31:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57324535.7050501@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 03:20 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) They are discussing the buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), obviously, not the bison (Bison bison). Buffalo have been known in Europe and Asia for thousands of years, and have nothing to do with bison. Americans may be in the sloppy habit of calling bison "buffalo", but since neither the Mechaber nor the Rama were American this is irrelevant. Americans also have a fish they call "buffalo", but that's equally irrelevant. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:55:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:55:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Rav Tal on the state of Israel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160510235548.GA7880@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:10:45PM +0300, R Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim: > In these days of the yahrzeit of RAL there are many articles about > him. One article says that RAL objected strongly to the above > statements. He questions whether any rabbi has the "email address" > of hashem and knows what is helping or hindering the coming of Moshiach. His rebbe and FIL held a similar opinion. Which is why RYBS suggested to those talmidim who were going to say the Tefillah leShalom haMedinah that they might be able to get adding "shetehei" without arguments from the congregation May our Father who is in heaven bless Israel that it become the beginning of the flowering of our redemption, rather than asserting as a given that Israel is that beginning. R SY Alkalai and R ZH Kalisher, the first RZ (or religious proto-Zionist) voices, certainly did speak in terms of ge'ulah and qibbutz golios in the eschatological sense. However, R' Yitzcvhaq Reines, Mizrachi's founder, as well as R' Shmuel Mohilever were also non-messianic in their Zionism, and yet their Zionism was religious, not in addition to their religion. We've discussed in the past the fact that not all RZism is Messianic Zionism, and in fact amongst RZ gedolim, this opinion might not even have the majority. Depending, of course, on the fruitless exercise of defining who is a gadol. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:17:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:17:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to India. They did not initiate the discussion - The Be'ar Hagola tracks the source of that halacha to the Agur (Rabbi Yaakov Landau, 15th century) who was quoting Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron of 13th century Trani, Italy. In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water buffalo, an animal that is raised domestically as cattle in parts of Italy. It is from the milk of water buffalo that mozzarella cheese was originally made near Naples, Italy, and in southern Italy it is still used to make "authentic" mozzarella cheese. This would lead one to suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a kosher behamah (domesticated animal) see here for detals: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:38:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:38:21 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. ie from the halachic point of view is it a bigger problem having a memorial day in Nissan; or a simcha day in Iyar. and from a hashkafic view which is more problematic. the latter comes onto violation of 3 Oaths, idea of a 'secular' state in holy land etc . the former only that somehow holocaust is a prelude to a State, and that those who died resisting were somehow more valiant.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <57327651.5030802@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 04:17 PM, Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah wrote: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to > India. Not "likely". There's not even a hava amina otherwise. > In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water > buffalo Not just Italian but in pretty much every language, including English. > This would lead one to > suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, > were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a > kosher behamah (domesticated animal) Again, this is not a suspicion, it's a complete certainty, and I'm astonished that it even occurs to anyone to question it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:22:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 03:22:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0822d59a-9d49-b752-e005-a309ae78f4c0@starways.net> On 5/10/2016 11:38 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction > these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more > objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. Yom HaShoah is almost certainly more problematic. When the government of Israel asked the rabbis to make a Holocaust remembrance day, they were told that Tisha B'Av and Asara B'Tevet (Yom kiddush klal) covered it, and refused to create a separate day. The Knesset created Yom HaShoah themselves. It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious observances is likely to have a problem with it. Personally, I'm one of them, and while I won't walk down the sidewalk whistling on Yom HaShoah, I don't otherwise pay any attention to the day at all. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 23:56:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:56:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, *Bubalus bubalis*, native to > India. ... The question is then the halachic status of the American Bison - does it require kisui hadam and can one breed an american bison with cattle (beefalo) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 22:20:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 01:20:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re:, Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Micha Berger wrote: > Zvi Lampel wrote: > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... >: where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in >: fact it implies the opposite R. Micha responded: > Then why would you think that was the reference? My answer: Because you wrote so in reply to me previously: > Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:33:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Micha Berger" > Subject: Re: IS THE WORLD GOOD? ... >> ZL: can you direct me to where the Ramchal, too, says this?) > > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See > , where I > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and > Pischei Chokhmah 30. And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 03:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> References: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160511100415.GC11561@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:20:03AM -0400, H Lampel wrote: : > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I : > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See : > , where I : > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and : > Pischei Chokhmah 30. : And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without : citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Because there we were discussing something about logic and theology in general -- that it has no law of excluded middle. Or in English, the specific rule of paradoxes does not apply to G-d nor the shorashim of creation. And his version of the thesis of zeh le'umas zeh is in pesach 30. (R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) also uses zeh le'umas zeh and the idea that paradox is only prohibited bepo'al, not bemachashavah, to explain eilu va'eilu.) It is also sufficient for this conversation, as it shows that G-d can make a paradox manifest. However, I am still on the hunt for the source of the specific idea I was repeating from R' Aryeh Kaplan, that logic as a whole is a nivra rather than an aspect of Emes. (Work being what it has been the last week and a half, it's a very part time hunt.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 04:52:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asks: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) Google is wonderful. I entered "yoreh deah 28:4", and the third hit brought me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info about who they are) which says: > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) rules that one does not > perform kisuy hadam for a buffalo; this determines it to be a > beheimah. (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been meant. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 08:00:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:00:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160511150044.GE7880@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:52:18AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info : about who they are) which says: : : > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) ... : > (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, : > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years : > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... : Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been : meant. I think that is a list of other species for which the same logic would apply, and not other possible translations of buffalo. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 12:50:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:50:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 14:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5733A635.7040108@sero.name> On 05/11/2016 03:50 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile > "On the day that you are redeemed from the exile". Since lechol hade'os that has not yet happened (for instance, nobody has changed the davening to drop all the requests for the redemption, since it's already happened), it follows that hallel should *not* be said. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 23:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:52:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: A while back I did a shiur which touched on the efficacy of "Keil Maaleh's". I found one source which said to give tzedakah before making a keil maaleh rather than pledging to do so. This sounded extremely rational; deliver rather than promise. Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? 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 Thu May 12 00:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:44:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smartphone on shabbat Message-ID: *Zomet At The Crossroads* *> "Telegramma" - Speaking on a Smartphone on Shabbat */ The Zomet Institute At Zomet Institute we receive many requests on a wide range of subjects. One subject that keeps coming back is: When will you design a cellphone that can be used on Shabbat? This question comes from health and security personnel, who use a special telephone as part of their regular Shabbat routine, and who are looking for a way to use the new devices while keeping desecration of Shabbat to a minimum. We are happy to announce that in the last few weeks Zomet has finished the development of a smartphone "App" that uses a speaking device for Shabbat and where the keys are operated using the principle of "*gramma*" ? indirect action. Touching the screen merely changes the flow of an existing current, and therefore the smartphone can be used when there is a need for it. The " *Telegramma*" App is suitable for use only in cases of dire need, such as for matters related to health, security, or similar situations. The App is suitable for smartphones which operate on Android version 4 or higher, and it operates in conjunction with the Telegramma speaking device. For more details, contact us at www.zomet.org5-6]ssxhjxhhxnngntn/eng. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:31:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:31:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > observances is likely to have a problem with it. She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing shows that in the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:42:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:42:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic Message-ID: I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with the present discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: <<< Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? >>> Here's my guess: What will motivate one to donate beforehand? Emotions run high when the rav gives his Yizkor drasha (or at least, the emotions *ought* to run high). It's hard to get into that frame of mind before the event. This is not like other things where we are sure to prepare in advance, like preparing our matzos or our sukkah. If someone shows up at the Seder without matzos, the ramifications will insure that he will certainly remember next year. But if he arrives at Yizkor (or whenever) and forgot to donate beforehand, he'll simply promise to give after Yom Tov, and this b'dieved eventually became the standard. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57346F3E.5080102@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 06:42 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b > which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects > there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change > this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum > of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to > do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd > spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with > the present discussion That is what logicians say. See the Lewis quote in my .sig. But how do you know that it's true? Chassidus says that G-d *can* make A (which is greater than B, which is greater than C) less than C, if He wants to, because He created logic in the first place, and is not bound by it. Mekom ha'aron is the most famous example. Lewis would undoubtedly say that Chazal's description can't be true, because an object that takes up space can't simultaneously *not* take up any space. An object that has width *must* add to the width of the room in which it lies. But Chazal tell us it didn't. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 17:33:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:33:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." It has been noted that if the problem occurs because the dough is not or cannot be thoroughly kneaded, then flour would be on the inside as well. Reading the words of the ShA HaR leaves no room for any doubt - he was definitely not concerned about flour INSIDE the Matza, ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza. This is what he writes, "In truth there is no Halachic problem with Gebrochts, nevertheless those who are strict deserve a blessing. This stringency is not without reason and one who observes it is not acting in a bizarre manner but is in fact concerned to avoid a Torah prohibition [brings a number of authorities] since the flour may not have been thoroughly baked" [because flour that is baked is denatured and cannot ever become Chamets] "As can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded. Even though the flour INSIDE the Matza is a much more serious problem because it has been protected from the heat of the oven, AND IN OUR CASE THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION ...... " So - back to the Q - is this factually correct? It is clear that the ShAHa is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? and that if so, it is not baked and thereby denatured? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:35:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512153522.GD9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:42:50AM +0000, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic... Because we use logic to understand things. The chisaron is in "understand" not the possibility being discussed. Lemashal, Quantum Logic is very different than the logic we use to think with, and yet, it's still a logic with its own rules. Can you understand how electron X is spin-up or spin-down, and X is spin-left could be true, while the statement electron X is either spin-up and spin-left, or X is spin-down and spin-left might not? And yet, the difference is experimentally provable. Saying that Hashem can violate logic inherently means that some of His Actions are among the non-understandable things about Him. ... : An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic... Nu, so you agree with the Rambam. That "a round triangle" is a nonsense phrase, not describing something that can or cannot be done. Modern studies into logic, which has reveals that there is no one true logical system, have made me more skeptical. OTOH, if Hashem can defy logic, how would we ever be able to use logic to argue the point? Any proof of the position I attributed to the Ramchal and Zev attributes to Chassidus would require ruling out an adherance to logic rather than pro-atively arguing for its defiance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:22:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512152203.GC9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 06:31:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Under the current rules, Yom : Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time.... : While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted : from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which : is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the : Knesset or from the rabanim? The CR's office, in order to reduce chillul Shabbos. IIRC, for a while after the rule change, the RCA advised observing on 5 Iyyar in chu"l anyway, as American O observances wouldn't pose that kind of chilul Shabbos risk. They since changed policy. I suggested that someone may make peace with the fact by noting that having a country where the legal holidays are moved around in order to minimize chillul Shabbos is much of what one is saying Hallel for. But as one blogger put it... When you sit down to learn daf beis, you make a birkhas haTorah but not a siyum. There is what to celebrate in the existence of such a country, but the fact that they need to worry about chilul Shabbos by the masses shows Yom haAtzma'ut is a "birhas haTorah", not a siyum. Or as Rav Dovid Lifshitz put it... There is much to celebrate about YhA. But beyond atzma'ut, the nation needs to find the etzem. The job is only half-done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:08:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:08:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99d163da-fad0-a04f-8f8f-a9be47a769e7@starways.net> On 5/12/2016 1:31 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > > > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > > observances is likely to have a problem with it. > > She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know > how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, > Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a > quick glance at Wikipedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing > shows that in > the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) > > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has > resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) > on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the > change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? I don't know. I suspect the rabbanut, because they were the ones who established the holiday in the first place, but I don't know for certain. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:06:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:06:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah >> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile << -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: <19882.2235ddad.44661f9f@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) in Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 53 >> i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. << >>>> What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. But I will take the occasion to draw your attention to what I have written in the past about Yom Hashoah. This is from Cross-Currents, 2005. (I don't recommend wading through all the comments there though.) http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/05/06/yom-hashoah/ And in 2006, in the comments section to a post by Shira Schmidt [http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/05/04/the-controversy-over-holocaust-falle n-soldiers-terror-victims-memorials/], I wrote this about Yom Atzmaut: --quoting myself-- My mother has cousins ? an elderly couple, not religious ? who lost their only son in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Every year on Yom Hazikaron they cry anew, but they find the abrupt transition to Yom Atzmaut too jarring and cannot find it in themselves to celebrate. The Israeli government tried to set up a neat historical lesson that would take a few weeks each year and go in an orderly progression: 1. Galus Jews go like sheep to the slaughter ? Yom Hashoah 2. In Israel a new Jew is created, the proud Israeli soldier, who is brave and strong. He doesn?t die a helpless victim, he dies a hero, defending his homeland ? Yom Hazikaron 3. All the evil and sorrow of our past is now redeemed with the glorious new day, a proud and strong new young country, the State of Israel ? Yom haAtzmaut. Of course this simple story line has become darkened and more complex with the passage of time. Israel is no longer strong and new and young but weary and battle-scarred. Nowadays Yom Hashoah is commemorated with far more respect for the survivors than was the case in the early days, far more sorrow and far less arrogance and false pride. The Israeli Army is still looked at with pride but more young Israelis try to get out of serving ? a favorite ploy is to feign mental illness. The brave soldiers so lionized in the past are instead looked at today simply as sons and brothers. There is less glory and pride and more sorrow and grief, for all the young lives lost. Nevertheless, of all the institutions of the modern Israeli state, the army is the one most deserving of our respect and gratitude ? in my opinion. Finally, Yom Atzmaut is not looked at, either, the way it was in the past. If you read Yoram Hazony?s book *The Jewish State* ? or look at the soul-searching in the Mizrachi camp after the Gaza withdrawal ? you see that on both ends of the political spectrum, a weariness and wariness have set in, as the State has not lived up to expectations. The Left is in a post-Zionist phase where patriotism and flag-waving are passe and the alleged mistreatment of the Arabs overshadows all else. The Right has seen its messianic expectations dashed and realizes that the State is not yet the Redemption. My mother?s cousins who can?t find it in their hearts to celebrate Yom Atzmaut are not the only ones. Israel needs to rewrite its storyline. -- end of quote -- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 14:57:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:57:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:06pm RnTK wrote: : From: Eli Turkel via Avodah :> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. :> In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the :> Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi :> explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are :> redeemed at the end of the exile : Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. Nor on Chanukah? Besides, what R' Yochananan mishum R' Shim'on ben Yehotzadaq actually says there on that pasuq is that "laylah she'ein mequdash lachag, ein ta'un hallel". Which would also exclude Chanukah. >From context, I would say the gemara is asking why the existence of a holiday qorban in particular is not sufficient to justify Hallel on Pesach Sheini. So RY says, because the night is not muqdash to the qorban hachag. As for Rashi, he is commenting on the quoted pasuq. "The song will be for you -- on the day that you will be redeemed from the galus." "Like in the night which will be santified chag -- like the way you are acustomed to sing on the night which is sanctified chag. And you do not have a nightof chag to demand shirah except the nights of Pesachim, on their eating." Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 12:48:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:48:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512194844.GE9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:31AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The ShA HaRav writes : "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their : surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly : kneaded ...." Mimah-nafshakh the AR is speaing about it being a big enough risk to justify a minhag lehachmir, but not to the level of an issur. The AR writes "Be'emes, ki gam she'eino isur gamur bubarur midina, m"m hamachmir tavo alav berakhah." If it was normal for flour to be present on matzos, it would be a risk one would not be allowed to take. And if it was easy to see, no risk would be legitimate -- efshar levareir! We need to understand his empirical claims accordingly. Not a statement about something blatant that someone would notice without even a formal survey. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 19:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57351578.1080609@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 05:57 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which > Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel > for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before > establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. I'm pretty sure this does exclude any other night-time hallel. That, after all, is the gemara's point in quoting the pasuk in the first place -- to show that there is only one night on which hallel is said, and therefore it is not said on Pesach Sheni. I also don't see the implication that the future holiday's hallel will be said at night. All the pasuk seems to be saying is that there will be a new yomtov on which you will say hallel, as you do on the night that is sanctified for a chag. Yeshayahu is merely citing an example of an occasion when hallel is said, and could easily have cited a different one instead, but he would have had to be more specific, since there are many days on which hallel is said, and many on which it is not. By citing Pesach night as his example, he can get away with saying, essentially, "like on hallel night", which is not ambiguous because there is only one. From this the gemara learns that there is no hallel on Pesach Sheni. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:25:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:25:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is worse Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/search/?s=yom+haatzmaut&sort=1 1. the issue of date changing of YH is dealt with in rabbi grunstein's lecture 2. the issue of saying hallel at all , that some provocatively dismiss outright, is dealt with by rabbi zylberman, appropriately in his talk at the Aguda of Passaic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 23:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 06:20:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt Message-ID: While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day from the end of the British mandate to avoid chillul shabbat so yom haazmaut was always arranged to avoid chillul shabbat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 07:24:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May I presently buy Israeli carrots after the recent Shmita year? Message-ID: <1463149425226.74416@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. Israeli carrots currently being sold in the U.S. (May 2016) at this point can be assumed to no longer be peiros shevi'is and may be purchased lichatchila. In fact, purchasing Israeli products is commendable as it benefits the Israeli economy. However, if the carrots do not have a reliable kosher certification, one must separate the relevant tithes (Terumos and Ma'aseros). This year is the first year of the shemita cycle. This means that ma'aser sheini must be separated. The ma'aser sheini portion can be redeemed by transferring its kedusha (elevated status) to a coin. Even a nickel may be used, provided the ma'aser sheini portion (approximately 9% of the package of carrots) is worth more than a peruta, approximately 3 or 4 cents. For the procedure to separate Terumah and Maaser, see https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/separating-terumah-and-maaser/. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 08:52:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:52:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) 2 questions. 1. What is the heter to free the kids? (it's a torah prohibition to free them) 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha and kids thru her (eved ivri) He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:07:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:07:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] on a role for a 'secular' Israel Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/856920/rabbi-moshe-taragin/secular-zionism-for-religious-jews/#.VzVBhX-h6_c.mailto Very good explanation to MTA boys on how to look at the zionist enterprise and how to view it in the scope haskala, brit sinai vs moriah , kiddush hashem etc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:44:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:44:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: >>>What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. ----some people need to ask themselves why asking a halachic question provokes them. maybe the 'slyness' was pointing out that an issur can only be perceived as assur by those who believe said action is assur , not by those who feel act in question is muttar/mitzvah. clearly i couldn't ask why people who commemorate those two days don't realize that it's actually assur.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:18:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:18:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> Message-ID: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> On 05/13/2016 11:52 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer > who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce > children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular > Jews) > > 2 questions. > > 1. What is the heter to free the kids? > (it's a torah prohibition to free them) It's also prohibited to have relations with a shifcha, but Chazal permitted a mamzer to do so for this purpose. > 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he > did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them > (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? > parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos > 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha > and kids thru her (eved ivri) > He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship > with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) Why do you say that? On the contrary, "veyatz'ah ishto imo" means his wife goes in with him, i.e. lives with him at his owner's expense. And *only* a married eved ivri is allowed a shifcha. The simple and expected case is that he loves and gets along with *both* of his wives, and wants to stay with both. > The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Again, because she is his wife and they are his children. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:24:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:39 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted > from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which > is not the actual anniversary. > Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day... RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out on. That the Rabbanut moved that day forward or backward to avoid Chilul Shabbos was not significant. The day that Israel was declared a state is the day to say Hallel (and not to say Tachnun). One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:44:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:44:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160513184458.GC10043@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 06:24:08PM +0000, Harry Maryles wrote: : RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out : on... Although RAS was niftar before the telecom explosion that caused much of the RCA to shift position. As RGS recently wrote about R/Dr Aaron Levine of Flatbush : In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:54:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:54:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> Message-ID: <063701d1ad48$d0e0f7b0$72a2e710$@com> RZS writes ...How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? You are claiming a tremendous chidush l'halacha - that these are actually his kids. Do you have anyone who says this? It w appear not, bc they are not mityaches acharav (as a proof - we see that they are avodim, and not mamzers) mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 04:46:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 07:46:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> The justification for the shiur of a geris for kesmamim on clothing is that any spot that is a kegeris or less in area could be from a crushed parasite. So the kesem proves nothing. Also (Niddah 58b) points out that they couldn't make a gezeirah that would mean she would never be tahor leba'alah. I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? For comparison: Tosafos (58b, "ukidvarav") say that if she were infested with many ma'akhalos, one could be toleh even a larger kesem on that. We do not hold like Tosafos. The AhS (YD 190:18) pins that on these bugs being loners. They don't scamper in pairs. Multiple crushed lice would make multiple kesamim. Alternatively (se'if 27, in the name of the Rosh se'if 6) lo pelug chakhamim. Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. (A ma'akholes is apparently too common or too unnoticable to warrant needing to know if there was one around.) And the AhS (se'if 31) says that because pishpeshin can't be found where he lives, this din doesn't apply. This is based on Rashi ("R"N") saying "there are places where pishpeshin are found, and in those places..." Would people living in modern settings have to say the same about the ma'akholes? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:19:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:19:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which > case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, > pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've > unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than > lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the > ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. The bedbugs that I had seen in both the US and Israel are significantly larger than lice, and when filled with blood, hold a lot more. Furthermore, bed bugs have a very distinct odor (at least when there is a significant infestation) that many people can smell. -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:32:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 08:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57386C6F.6070906@sero.name> > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a > place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, > that this is a likely alternative explanation. Bedbugs are back, and can strike anywhere, and the first indication of their presence, long before one actually sees them, is the kesamim they leave behind. I wonder if "maacholes" actually means bedbug, but even if it doesn't the same principle applies. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 07:12:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:12:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live > in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice > and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. > > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah > didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and > therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came > from? I've always figured on the second of these two. My reasoning is based on the halachos of where the kesem was found. If we are going to make logical estimates "about where the kesem came from", then we shouldn't care about whether or not the cloth can be mekabel tumah. Who cares about the size of the cloth, or the color of the cloth, or the material of the cloth? But the system was set up such that if the cloth is not m'kabel tumah, then the kesem can't be tamay either. And so too for the size of the kesem. I had a lot of trouble understanding - and even accepting - the above, but when I realized that without hargasha everything becomes d'rabanan, it began to make sense. (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche to set it up however they wanted.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:25:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:25:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mazer Message-ID: <> There is a major discussion if one has a child who is a mamzer whether he has fulfilled the mtzvah of pru u-revu or not. Similarly is there a mitzva for a mamazer to marry a mamzerut to have children (see minchat chinuch, har tzvi, kovetz shiurim) BTW I saw an opinion that if a mamzer marries a shifcha and has a child he doesn't fulfil; pru u-revi but he does fulfill le-shevet yezarah see a discussion by RAL on pru urevu vs leshevet yetzirah (Hebrew) http://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D6%B6%D7%91%D6%B6%D7%AA-%D7%90 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:43:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Mordechai Cohen asked: <<< The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) >>> My understanding is that if a Jew has relations with a non-Jewess and the resulting children convert to Judaism, he DOES fulfill p'ru uv'vu through them. (Maybe that's only in the case of a non-Jewush man who converts together with his children? I'm not sure.) <<< He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha ... The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? >>> No, it's not the *posuk* who refers to the shifcha and children that way. The posuk is merely quoting the man. It is the man who referred to them that way, and given his love for them, I'd expect nothing less. One might argue that he wrong for feeling that love and/or for expressing it, but that's irrelevant: He does feel that way, and he did verbalize it, and the Torah is merely quoting him. My second answer is more technical. Hebrew has no word for wife. His words could just as easily be translated as "I love my woman", which I presume you'll concede to be accurate. As far as "my children", well, he just wasn't being very clear. He didn't mean "my halachic children", but merely "my genetic children". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:43:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 01:43:44 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? Message-ID: It seems R Micha has erred by not recognising that the risk is NOT about whether there is flour, of course there is flour - as the SAHaR says 'behold we see with our own eyes' that there is flour on the Matza the risk is whether the flour that is certainly there on many Matzos - has been toasted adequately to be denatured and prevented from becoming Chamets when exposed to water. Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57389966.5020706@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 10:12 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts > in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha > d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it > is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only > works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche > to set it up however they wanted.) This is not true. Mid'oraisa tzuras hapesach works in a reshus horabim de'oraisa. That one can't fix a r"hr simply by putting up four poles and four strings is mid'rabanan. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 11:45:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> From: M Cohen via Avodah R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) Mordechai cohen >>>>> There is no "shifcha" today. But a mamzer can marry a non-Jewish woman and have children with her, and later those children can convert to Judaism. I'm not saying he is halachically allowed to marry a non-Jewish woman but the fact is, if he does so, his children will not be mamzerim. Similarly a kohen who is a challal can avoid having children who are challalim by having children with a non-Jewish woman, and later they can convert and be kosher Jews. True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be cha llalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid the consequences of sin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 16:59:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:59:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 02:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such > eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was > tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid > the consequences of sin. That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no reason not to encourage him to do it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 01:32:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:32:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: On 5/16/2016 2:59 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one > we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually > forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no > reason not to encourage him to do it. Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 02:58:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 05:58:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516095809.GA31988@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:43:44AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the : facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour : is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. ... only because you're asking about the problem being prevalent enough for gebrochts to be assur. Whereas I am arguing that by context, we know the SAhR's "harbei" means prevalent enough to be worth a chumerah. And that kind of frequency would require a broad survey. Not sure if that qualifies as efshar levareir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 04:57:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:57:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten bam) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 06:18:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> R' Micha - thanks for the m"makom - still have to look it up. RMB also asked - Are you asking why a man might want to have children other than his chiyuv to do so? Ans. I am aware that a man can (and might want to) raise children not his own. Ie adoption. My question was that R Tarfon seems to imply that his eitza is more than just adopting and raising children not his own. I didn't (and still don't) understand why his eitza is better - they are not mityaches to him in any way. RZS's answer is not true. BTW, thanks to Reb Google, see article on this subject (though it does not extensively deal w/ my questions) [Posted as part of the thread or -micha] Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 10:41:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't > think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah Kamoha) seems to disagree. On 05/16/2016 07:57 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: >> "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not >> yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" > The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children > are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The > Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with > the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks > nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten > bam) The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) But the proof that your children by a nochris are nochrim like her is from the pasuk that says they are not your children. That pasuk doesn't *say* that they're nochrim, but the gemara deduces that since they have no Jewish parent what else could they be? The pasuk itself is not concerned with their status, since the avera it says they'll do is avoda zara, which is forbidden also to nochrim, and thus if they were your children this would be a matter of concern to you. (Your obligation of chinuch would surely apply to your non-Jewish children, if it were possible for you to have any; you wouldn't have to teach them not to eat treif or break shabbos, but surely you would have to teach them not to serve avoda zara, and thus it should upset you that their mother will teach them to serve it.) By saying that this is not something you should be upset about, the pasuk is telling you that they are not your children, and thus their idolatry and subsequent damnation is none of your business. On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > RZS answer is not true. And your proof is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 22:14:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: On Monday, May 16, 2016, Zev Sero wrote: > On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't >> think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. > Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar > Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. > The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt > http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah > Kamoha) seems to disagree. You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being your children. I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they are your children or not. Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 13:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <5bc7f3.13131e6f.446b89a5@aol.com> > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone.[--old TK] AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben ben1456 at zahav.net.il >>>>> But I think the son of a challal is a challal, and his son, and his son, forever. And the daughter of a challal cannot marry a kohen. So his granddaughter (son of his son), his great-granddaughter and so on, can never marry kohanim -- at least until so many generations have passed that no one remembers the family are challalim. Whereas if he has a son with a non-Jewish woman that son is not a challal. He's also not a Jew, but he can become one. And the daughter of a ger can marry a kohen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:13:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 23:13:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben On 5/15/2016 8:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:34:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:34:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A20C2.2050400@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 03:14 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. > The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with > their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, > and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's > property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to > exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, > but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that > of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) > > You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being > your children. Neither the pasuk nor the gemara says anything about their yichus. All it discusses is their status. The Pasuk says they belong to their mother's owner, therefore the gemara says they are avadim. There's no chain of logic involved here; the gemara is merely restating the pasuk. That is very unlike the gemara's next case, where the pasuk doesn't directly address the children in question at all, and its indirect statement is that they are not yours, from which the gemara infers that they must be nochrim. > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. > Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as > a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. 1) Who says a Jew can't be related to a non-Jew? The gemara's order of logic is *not* "they're nochrim, therefore they're not your children", but rather "they're not your children, therefore they're nochrim". 2) Avadim *are* Jews, so who says they can't be related to Jews? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:31:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 05:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from > other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:57:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516215742.GC21112@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:27:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: : shabasos limnucha : moadim l'simcha : chagim uzmanim l'sason : : I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are... : My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, : because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are : Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they : the same in regards to Sason? Apparently they are different aspects of the same thing. As in, "Chag haMatzos haZeh, zeman Cheiruseinu." There is a duality between zeman va'eis, as in a beris being be'ito uvizmano. Quoting what I wrote in v15n74: > ... RAKotler has a beautiful vort on the > difference. Beqitzur to the point of omitting the beauty: eis = a > point in the time sequence of a process. (RSRH would probably relate > "eis" to "ad".) Be'ito, when the baby is ready. Zeman = a point in > time according to a scedule. In this case, the morning of day 8 (or > day 9 when a safeiq Shabbos situation arises). I wrote a vort for MmD > on eis, zeman, qeitz, yamim, shanim, and Jewish time in general at > . In that vertl, I suegges that a qeitz is where the zeman and eis for the end coincide. Thus, "miqeitz shenasayim yamim" is when the predetermined number of years in jail were up AND when Yoseif was developmentally ready. Shanim and yamim. Circular time and linear time. A chag is a point in circular time, /ch-v-g/ related to /`-v-g/ to draw a circle. It's a sacred eis. But every chag coincides with a sacred zeman. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 23rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination Fax: (270) 514-1507 stifle others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 15:02:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:02:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516220214.GD21112@aishdas.org> I feil to see the problem. Nosein ta'am and bitul beshishim go hand-in-hand. RMF yses this argument in a letter to R' Pinechas Teitz to explain why whiskey can be made in sherry casks; since stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6, there is no problem of ta'am. You would obviously tased a mixture of 6 parts water to one part wine. Since qitniyos are batel berov, why would there be reason to say that a pot can becomes "peasdik"? (To quote a subject line from a month ago.) Are we afraid that the volume of the walls of the pot exceed the volume the pot holds? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 22:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:35:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> Message-ID: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No issur involved. 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? On 5/16/2016 11:31 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters > are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim > like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:34:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be :> declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? : Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one : can't accept it in many other cases A little more complicated, since discussing chumeros in mamzeirus raises an issue distinct to mamzeirus. "Kivan denitme'ah, nitme'ah" is a gezeiras hakasuv which makdes resolving mamzeirus in many cases beyond chumerah -- altogether needless. Being born of a father other than the husband does not make these people mamzeirim altogether. More than that, the gemara (Qiddushin 71a) continues telling you one SHOULD NOT reveal the families in which mamzeirus is nitme'ah. It is therefore consistent to refuse DNA testing for mamzeirus (in these cases), while believing that DNA testing is in principle halachically valid evidence. Part of a general reluctance to gather eviudence. However, I would think we could use DNA testing to help a shetuqi or asufi, to free him for the shadow of mamzeirus or at least allow him to marry vadai mamzeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 08:04:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:04:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517150411.GD8481@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 05:54:21PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote: : Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. : While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of : yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? Exactly. Better to use a DNA test to make a shetuqi or asufi either kosher yichus or a vadai mamzer than leaving him a shetuqi or asifu. So I assume in such cases, we should use the DNA test; either result is better than none. (And it's not a kivan shenitme'ah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 09:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 5/17/2016 8:35 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No > issur involved. But then their sons are challalim. > 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to > marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a > convert or divorcee)? Zona, with a zayin. I know one couple who, when they went to get married, were told by their rabbi that she was a virgin. That he didn't want to hear about what she'd done or not done. Granted, she wasn't marrying a kohen, but I guess there's a chazaka. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 12:54:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:54:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:06:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Areivim wrote: : Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people whose values contradict : the Torah is not a hillul hashem.... : As RZS has often said here, kiddush hashem does not mean "good PR" And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul hasheim because CH *does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive Peloni. Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. The gemara literally defines qiddush hasheim has good PR. To tweak that first quoted sentence: Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people because they hold values that contradict the Torah is not a chillul hasheim. That isn't you pushing them away from avodas Hashem, it's them a natural downward spiral. However, lowering that estaeem among people whose values contradict the Torah's for other reasons is NOT "sheyehei sheim shamayim mis'aheiv al yadekha." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:30:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > Peloni. Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a *kiddush* haShem. > Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct value system. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:24:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:24:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> Message-ID: <573B7DFB.1050504@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > Btw, thanks to reb google, see article on this subject (though it does not > extensively deal w my questions) > > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf Very thorough, but I see one enormous flaw -- the author takes it for granted that slavery is barred by dina demalchusa. This may be true in some countries, e.g. the UK, where the common law has held for centuries that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in, and thus that any slave who sets foot in England automatically becomes free. But it remains to be established that this is the case in all countries, particularly in the USA, where the 13th amendment only bans *involuntary* servitude. I am unaware of any law in the USA that would prevent a person from voluntarily becoming the property of another, and after _Lawrence_ and _Obergefell_ such laws, if they exist, may even be unconstitutional! If so, then the shifcha method could work here. There may well also be other countries where this is the case. And in Israel it might be possible to introduce legislation in the Knesset to explicitly legalise voluntary avdus, with appropriate safeguards to prevent it being abused. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:51:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 00:51:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't > include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we > make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the severity of the laws of taharot. He says that even though that reason no longer applies in our current circumstances, we can't nullify the gezerah of ketamim altogether. But we certainly don't need to extend it beyond the specifications of the original gezerah. So a ketem smaller than a k'gris does not make a woman niddah, even nowadays when such a stain cannot plausibly be attributed to a ma'akolet. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:47:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. : : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. Where does it say that? And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah by how clean some TC's frock is? : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation is not limited to those peers. : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive : >Peloni. : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a : *kiddush* haShem. ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off to Tzeduqim? Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. : : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct : value system. You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such limitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517220836.GA31726@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51:47AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. : Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the : reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the : severity of the laws of taharot... So the CS holds that kegeris is the limit of the gezeirah, and not just part of the general "you can be toleh kesamim on anything plausible". Pishpishin and the shiur of a keturmos (the size of a bean called a "lupine"?) *is* considered part of that general rule. To the extent that the Rambam doesn't give it special mention. Which brings me to the next question... How does the CS know that kegeris and blaming a ma'akholes is different in kind than the rest of the sugya? We could deduce from the Rambam, but that just shifts my question up some centuries. For example, the Yereim says that the shiur is based on the lice of your region, and not the same kegeris (about a nickle) of chazal. Of course (given the above), the CS does say the shiur is a geris, not tied to the size of engourged lice. And does that mean that the Yereim (and the mi'ut of contemporary posqim who hold like him) would say there is no shiur today? BTW, the PT, #12 says besheim the Raavad that there is no shiur if the kesem is black, since a ma'akheles stain would always be rad. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 05:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. > : > : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > > Where does it say that? It's completely obvious, and doesn't need saying. It simply can't be otherwise. > And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah > by how clean some TC's frock is? Apparently so. Otherwise what guide do you have? Why do you assume pagans esteem cleanliness, when for every one that does so there's probably another who esteems filth and despises cleanliness? > : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, > > : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > > The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation > is not limited to those peers. But non-peers may well think highly of him for it. Think of the "game" community that has formed online in the last 20 years, and what sort of traits they admire and despise in a person. A reputation that would embarass a t"ch's peers would be lionised in those circles. > : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > : >Peloni. > > : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and > : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a > : *kiddush* haShem. > > ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off > to Tzeduqim? Then it's a good bet that it's a kiddush haShem. > Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my > capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. Actually the gemara's lashon is may *his* Lord forgive him. But it's obviously being said by people who know what Hashem's standards are. > : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. > : > : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct > : value system. > > You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such > limitation. It *has* to have it, because we have voluminous *evidence* of what KH/CH is, and it's emphatically *not* that sheim shomayim should be beloved by those "who call bad good and good bad, who establish darkness as light and light as darkness, bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:57:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> Who is the audience to chilul hasheim in Yesodei haTorah 5:11? "Haberios". Ad sheyimtz'u HAKOL meqlsin oso, ve'ohavim oso, umis'avim lema'asav. Harei zeh qideish as hasheim... "Hakol" is all who? Not all the berios, since that's all he (repeatedly) describes as the observers? -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:35:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:35:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish Message-ID: A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels that there is no health problem can eat the two together -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:32:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:32:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: <> RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea of shifcha today is ridiculous -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:28:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:28:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 05:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:28:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735391/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/eating-fish-and-meat-together/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 04:10:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573C4DA9.9060307@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 05:28 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they >> are your children or not. > > Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> > > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Of course marriage is an occasion when one is *interested* in yichus, just as one is interested in health, character, and all kinds of other things; would you say that "health refers to marrriage, and might have nothing to do with topics like strength, diet, medical treatment, or life expectancy"?! -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 07:27:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:27:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> RBW asked.. L'maaseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a zona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? Ans. Yes, all BT girls are asked 'as discreetly as possible' if they are mutar to a cohen or not when in the shidduch parsha. (bc rov are not eligible) L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must look towards FFB shidduchim This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they bring it up otherwise) Some stats: The average age Americans lose their virginities is 17.1 for both men and women The CDC also reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females aged 20 to 24. That number drops below 5 percent aged 25 to 29 Statistically, if you didn't have sex in your teen years, you're in the minority. The interesting/disturbing problem is that many (rov?) BT cohens are not probably not cohens. (and actually w be mutar to a zona, mutar l'tamai l'masim, etc) If the BT cohens mother grew up post 1960s/70s/80s or so (and became BT post high school), it's probably a chazakah that she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. It's unlikely that the BT boy is willing to ask his mother if she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. (and even if she says she wasn't, is she be believed against the chazaka?) I personally heard from a major chareidi posek that for this reason a cohen s l'chatchila not go out w a BT cohens daughter, if the parents were married before they became frum and she was a teenager post 1960s/70s/80s or so (bc of the possibility that she is actually the daughter of a chalalah who was forbidden to marry her father) As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 09:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:28pm IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they :> are your children or not. : :> Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. : : Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage... I assume you mean: Yichus refers to a persons lineage WRT whom they and their descendents may marry. Do I understand correctly? : It might have nothing to do : with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between : parents and child. Is there a source for making such a chiluq, or are you just posing a hava amina for discusion. I was told lehalkhah ulemasseh that an adoptive child's honoring his parents is a qiyum of kavod harav, not kibud av va'eim. So for KAvA, some kind of genetic parentage is involved. At 12:32pm IDT, RET continued (on a second aspect of the discussion): : RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea : of shifcha today is ridiculous I would like to have the grapevine confirmed on this one. But in any case... When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and shevuyim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:02:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> Message-ID: <573CA023.104@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 10:27 AM, M Cohen wrote: > L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must > look towards FFB shidduchim > > This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. > > At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they > bring it up otherwise) But what about chalalos? An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married. Who keeps track of that, let alone after several generations? > As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens > are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Not just BTs, as I pointed out above. And indeed many poskim do say that this is why our cohanim only duchen on yomtov; since they have no yichus, and can't know whether they're really entitled to duchen, they should avoid doing so except when it would be blatantly obvious, and would thus cause a pegam on their family. (This is a based on a gemara that a safek cohen would collect terumah only once a year, to keep up his name.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573CA023.104@sero.name> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> <573CA023.104@sero.name> Message-ID: <0dcd01d1b128$28a623c0$79f26b40$@com> RZS wrote ..An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married.. Ans. But these FFB girls DO have a chezkas kashrus. My point was that todays female BTs, and male BTs descended from cohanim don't have that chazaka anymore Mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:01:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:01:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:35:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on : yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not : eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels : that there is no health problem can eat the two together In terms of acharonim, it's the Yad Efraim (#116) CS (shu"t #101) prohibiting and the MA (OC 173) permitting. The MA says nishtanah hateva. The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which we don't eat anymore. 2- The Rambam omits it as he does any other piece of medical advice that doesn't work. According to R' Avraham b haRambam, nishtanah hateva means the scientific theory has changed. WHch would make this idea a paralel to the MA's reasoning. The YE lists numerous posqim who prohibit, appealing to authority rather than giving a sevara But I think there is more to the story than included in this report. It's non-trivial to tell people -- especially Ashkenazim -- to follow the Rambam against both the SA (including the Rama) and commonly accepted practice. I am not questioning the conclusion, I just think we are missing critical pieces of the argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573CA7CB.5070500@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 12:51 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and > shevuyim? That's discussed at length in the article that was forwarded. Basically since avdus is a matter of dinei momonos it would seem to depend on dina demalchusa. But my question is on the metzius in the USA; I question the assumption that voluntary slavery is illegal here. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 11:36:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:36:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> References: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> <573BA37C.9070402@sero.name> <20160518174122.GE6953@aishdas.org> <573CAB65.1060509@sero.name> <2e7c1df5b9ef9931f5bc64b483eaeff8@aishdas.org> <573CAD8E.2030905@sero.name> <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160518183641.GA3694@aishdas.org> Two more examples of qiddush hasheim being about behavior in front of anyone. 1- Geneivas aku"m through circumvention is a lack of qiddush hasheim (R' Aqiva, BQ 113a) 2- Orechos Tzadiqim, sha'ar haEmes, calls getting the nations to say "Berikh E-lohehon diYhuda'i!" to be a qidush hasheim. The example is from Shimon ben Shetach requiring his talmidim to return a gem to a Yishmaeli when it was lifnim mishuras hadin. (TY BM 2:5, vilna 8a) (Recall this is pre-Islam, the Yishmaeli was aku"m.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 01:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:26:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or even leaves the family. One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive family and biology contributes nothing. Though not the topic of the shiur if the mother is a shifcha or a nonJew the father (who stays with the family) is entitled to all rights of a father including kibud Av independent of any halachot of yichus. He is not worse than an adoptive parent (my conclusion not discussed in the shiur) The only exception to this rule is sitting shiva. One is required to sit shiva for the biological father and may sit shiva for the adoptive father. When questioned he explained that not sitting shiva for a father even if he did nothing for the family might hint of mamzerut -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 21:32:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Adar Jacob via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:32:58 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 02:59:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 05:59:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160519095946.GD26914@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Adar Jacob wrote: : As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting : it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov : for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. This isn't an issue of rov. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that kivan shenitma, nitma -- a family in which the mamzeirus got forgotten must be left that way. One is *prohibited* against digging up lost claims of mamzeirus. I think of it in similar terms to how an afflicted person isn't a metzorah until the kohein says so. Here too, the biological parentage is the primary factor in determining mamzeirus, but apparently not the only one. We must also be aware of that parentage. And if hot, the person isn't halachically a mamzer and we wrong him by finding out his biological state and making him subject to the strictures. It is only a foundling (asufi) or someone who can't identify who his father is (shetuqi) who are *derabbanan* held under doubt. (De'oraisa, only a definite mamzer is assur.) Not cases of needing to dig up history of people who think they're kosher. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 26th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking Fax: (270) 514-1507 control just a way of abandoning one's self? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:15:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:15:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573DA051.10607@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 01:01 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including > > 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which > we don't eat anymore. Or perhaps we (i.e. middle Europeans) *do* eat this species but the Rambam (in Egypt) didn't and was unaware of it. I know the two Aris have identified it as a species that exists only in the Euphrates, and thus is eaten only in Turkey and Iraq, but that's not information the CS could have had. It could just as easily have been a species that also lives in the Danube, but not in the Nile or the Mediterranean. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:12:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:12:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Death Message-ID: <1463667145403.74543@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Vayikra 21:5 They shall not make a bald spot on their head, nor shall they shaveoff the corners of their beard and they shall not make a wound in their flesh. Heathenism, both ancient and modern, tends to associate religion with death. The kingdom of God begins only where man ends. Death and dying are the main manifestations of divinity. For, in the heathen view, the deity is a god of death, not of life; a god who kills and never revives, who sends death and its harbingers - sickness and poverty - so that men, mindful of his power and their own helplessness, should fear him. For this reason heathen temples stand beside graves, and the foremost place of heathen priests is beside a corpse. There, where the eyes are dimmed and the heart is broken, they find fertile soil for the dissemination of their religion. He who bears on his flesh a mark of death - a symbol of death's power to conquer all - and thus remains ever mindful of death, performs the religious act par excellence, and this especially befits a priest and his office. Not so are the priests in Judaism, because not so is the Jewish concept of God and not so is the Jewish religion. God, Who instructs the Kohein regarding his position in Israel, is a God of life. The most exalted manifestation of God is not in the power of death, which crushes strength and life. Rather, God reveals Himself in the liberating and vitalizing power of life, which elevates man to free will and eternal life. Judaism teaches us not how to die but how to live, so that even in life we may overcome death, an unfree existence, enslavement to physical things, and moral weakness. Judaism teaches us how to live every moment of earthly life as a moment of eternal life in the service of God; how thus to live every moment of a life marked by moral freedom, a life of thought and will, creativity and achievement, and also pleasure. This is the teaching to which God has dedicated His Sanctuary and for whose service He has consecrated the Kohanim, who teach the people the "basis and direction of life" __________________________________________________________________ Based on this may one conclude that the present day obsession with death that one finds in some Islamic circles is a reversion to heathenism? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:54:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:54:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In continuation of the topic of kibud av ve-em from yevamot 22b that there is ni issur to curse a wicked father rambam hilchot mamrim explains that this applies only the punishment the Tur disagrees and says that one must honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva others distinguish and say that one must honor a wicked father only while he is alive see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva R Zilberstein brings the Zecher Shlomo (Lech Lecha) and the Chida (Devash Le-phi 1:39) that therefore Avraham owed no honor to his father Terach once Terach handed him over to Nimrod. R Zilberstein further brought the Maharam Shick that one who is involved (metapel) in a mitzvah is the owner of the mitzvah and whoever works and establishes a mitzvah is the one to make the arrangements. Thus the one who actively rears the child is the "owner" of the child and gets to make the decisions and not the biological parent who is not around. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573DA738.2000201@sero.name> On 05/19/2016 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation > of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or > even leaves the family. > One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's > marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. > R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has > absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the > adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em > applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that > abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive > family and biology contributes nothing. Sorry, this is contrary to halacha. Kibbud av va'em is not connected to hakarat hatov; it's a duty that one owes to ones parents *regardless* of whether they did one good or bad. Even a mamzer owes his parents kibud, although they did him the worst evil. Even Avraham Avinu, whose father handed him over to be burned, owed him kibbud av. An adoptive "parent" is only owed hakarat hatov (and kevod rabbo if he taught him torah) and therefore is only owed it if he actually did good and not bad. An abusive adoptive parent is owed nothing. This is not subject to any machlokes, thus there is no room for different opinions. Someone who says otherwise is simply wrong. I found an answer to my speculation that a Jew's child by a shifcha might be considered his child. It's not so. An eved has no yichus at all, not even to his mother(!) let alone his father. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 06:37:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:37:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to > do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections > between parents and child RZS: > What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? > Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Yichus may of course have different meanings in different contexts. The first mishna in the fourth perek of Kiddushin, Asara Yuchasin, very strongly connects yichus to marriage. The mishna lists ten halachic categories of personal status (my translation of "yichus") , and then immediately details the connection of these statuses to the permissibility of marriage Indeed it is clear that according to this mishna, a *very fundamental implication* of yichus is whom can one marry halachically, Putting this more strongly it seems that the mishna is defining ten halachic "marriageability" categories (yuchasin), making marriageability a *defining characteristic* of yichus. This is most likely what RET had in mind. In the framework of this mishna, RZS' statement "What does yichus have to do with marriage?Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less." is untenable.Yichus defines whom you can marry. When the gemara states "bno min min hashifcha umin hanachrit u eino mityaches acharav" it is saying, as we know, that halachically the child of a male Jew and a female slave or a non-Jewish woman is not his child; there is no genealogical connection ("yichus") between them. This is the sense of yichus that RZS apparently favors, but is a meaning of yichus very different from that in the above cited mishna. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 03:02:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:02:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I am bringing in more detail the story told by R Zilberstein. He gives out notes before the shiur and so this is all in print if anyone is interested A man divorced his wife after a nasty settlement without leaving any mezonot for the wife or their daughter. Later the woman married again and had a new happy family and the new husband raised the daughter from the first marriage supplying all her needs while the biological father had no contact with his daughter A few days before the daughter's marriage the father shows up holding an invitation upset that the adoptive father is listed as the father of the kallah and the biological father isn't mentioned at all. He screamed is the husband of your mother really your father? Though he had no contact with his daughter he described the shame he had with his friends and demanded that they print a new invitation with himself listed as the father of the bride The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father of the bride. Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to have his name listed on the invitation. The daughter returned to her father with the psak of R Zilberstein and the father remarked that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also needs to participate in buying an apartment. R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the biological father is listed. He was not sure whether the language should be "be abuha" or "be nasa" . The first would be a lie since she didn't live with her father but the second language is used only for an orphaned bride. His preferred remedy was to leave that phrase out completely. Again anyone who wants to see the Hebrew original can contact me -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:12:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:12:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573F3781.9080405@sero.name> On 05/20/2016 06:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that > the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. In other words, her obligation of kibud av va'em is to her real father, not to the one who raised her, but this obligation doesn't include putting him on her wedding invitation, for the reason explained later. > Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her > up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the > dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father > of the bride. I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by the father, but not in this case). > Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to > have his name listed on the invitation. [...] the father remarked > that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter > returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz > they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also > needs to participate in buying an apartment. Again, the term "to be considered the father" makes no sense here; can money make someone a father or not a father?! If he's not the father how can any amount suddenly make him one, and why are they haggling over the amount? Rather the issue here was not at all whether he's the father. Of course he is. The issue here was who is the host who is making the wedding and inviting people to it. And that is the person who is paying, not just for the actual affair, but also the expenses that enable the affair to happen, i.e. the apartment, without which there would be no shidduch. It appears from this psak that if he is willing to pay this the bride and her adoptive father may not refuse! And that would be because he is after all the father, and thus has the *right* to host his daughter's wedding, if only he is willing to do so. > R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological > father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the > biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but > when he is alive the biological father is listed. I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! And the fact is that she is forbidden to his relatives, and *permitted* to her adoptive father's relatives. (In fact it used to be common for someone who raised an orphan to arrange a marrriage for him or her with one of his own children. I even know of a case nowadays where this happened.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:18:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:18:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Surely prevention of marriage with (forbidden) relatives is applicable whether the biological father is or is not alive? On 20 May 2016 at 11:02, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in > order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not > alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the > biological father is listed. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 13:00:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:00:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: see http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ and especially http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful for this is also greater. also http://www.lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] The children may be identified when called to the Torah and in formal documents as the son or daughter of those who raised them, and the normal restrictions of *yihud* (which generally allows unsupervised and close contact with only biological parents, siblings and children) is not applicable to adoptive families, whose members interact as a biological family would. This is far more than transporting halakhic forms (like not addressing one?s adoptive parents by their first names) to the adoptive family. It is an expression of a new halakhic reality, so to speak. obviously laws of mourning are different between a biological parent and an adoptive parent Rabbi Soloveitchik insisted that there is a *kiyyum* of the mitzvah of *avelut* even when there is no halakhic obligation to mourn the specific individual. He drew this conclusion from the ruling that ?Where there is a case of a deceased who has left no mourners to be com?forted, ten worthy men should assemble at his placeall seven days of the mourning period and the rest of the people should gather about them [to comfort them]. And if the ten cannot stay on a regular basis, others from the community may replace them.? It was for this reason that the Rav regularly advised children to mourn the adopted parents who had raised them. If there was no * hiyyuv *[obligation]* ha-mitzvah*, there was none-the-less a *kiyyum ha-mitzvah*. BTW a friend of mine told me that there is a psak of R Schacter that if the parent abused the child and it would be a great stress on the child to mourn for the parent then he is exempt from sitting shiva -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 11:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:20:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I found an extended article on how to fix a mazer (tihur mamzerim) from avnei hamakom volume 15 from Rav Oren Zwick As to marrying a shifcha he nrings that minchat yotzchak outlawed it because of dina demalchuta Rab Breish (Chelkat Yaakov) - in a series of letters between them disagrees. In fact it is suggested that in Israel marriage is conducted by the rabbinate and halachically they should be able to allow a shifcha. It is stressed that this is on condition that it be done officially-legally by the Israeli rabbinate. He also discusses other options and ends with a reference to Yevamot 68b and bet shmuel 2:18 in the name os sefer charedim that a mamzer can't live more than 12 months > I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the > original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is > inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by > the father, but not in this case). I am confused. I emphatically stated that anyone who wants to see the original to contact me and I would send it. Why suspect what is written when one can check it yourself The words that R Zilberstein uses are harei she - "avi hakallah" bnidan didan hu ha-abba ha-choreg Obviously the adoptive father is not the "real" father is considered like the real father and is the one who should be listed as the father in the invitation > I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the > father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! Be-kewtuba raui lichtov et shemo shel ha-av ha-amiti hedei she-lo tezei taut u-machshla be-nisue krovim. Umnam be-yetoma kotvim et shemo shel mi she-gidel otah aval ke=she-ha-abba chai yesh lichtov et shemo I again strongly suggest that anyone who wants to challenge my interepation of the psak look at the original and not guess based on his knowledge what 2 major poskim state. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 21:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] ============================================== My general take on this topic is that many halakhists bent over backwards to find solutions to the adoption problems mentioned (e.g. yichud). Perhaps it was due to the need for orphans to find homes or the human drive for childless couples to have families(especially when dealing with non-Jewish adoptions)? I never found much written about the meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times influenced the decisions. 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 Sun May 22 16:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 19:12:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah Message-ID: Pesachim 35a tells us that ?things which can come to chimutz, a person can fulfill his chiyuv of matza with them; this excludes those which come not to chimutz, but to sirchon.? This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: > Lo sochal alav chametz > Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos > Do not eat chametz with it > For seven days you will eat matzos Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. After all, if the pasuk had said, "Do not eat carrots; you must eat beef," would that lead us to conclude that carrots and beef have similar definitions? However, the truth is that the phrases don't *need* to save any logical connection. If Torah Sheb'al Peh says that this is how Torah Sheb'ksav chose to connect the definitions of chametz and matzah, it's just one of many similar cases. (I don't know whether this particular limud is called a "hekesh" or something else, but I hope my point is clear.) So I am not saying that the gemara was wrong for deriving these definitions from that pasuk. What I *AM* asking is why the gemara points to that pasuk, when there is a different pasuk it could have used instead. In my view, there is another pasuk that makes the very same point, but much more clearly, in a very pshat way. Why should we resort to a lomdishe juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: > Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos > Ki lo chametz > Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah > They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza > Because it did not become chametz > Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. How much clearer can it be, presuming that the Author wants a historical narrative, and not a legal text? If the word "ki - because" was missing, my argument would be much weaker, but it is *not* missing, and it is the cornerstone of my argument: It became matza *because* it did not become chametz. Chametz and matza are one and the same, differing only in that one is baked prior to chimutz (which prevents chimutz from happening), and the other does undergo chimutz. If dough does reach chimutz, getting baked later is irrelevant. Baking is relevant only to preventing chimutz, which is what creates matza: "They baked it into matza, because it did not become chametz." But I can't find anyone who explicitly connects Shemos 12:39 to the definitions of chametz and matza. Even if there is some weakness to this pasuk, and Devarim 16:3 is truly stronger, I would think that this would be mentioned in the gemara. Pesachim 35a should have said something like, "And R' Ploni retorted, Why do you cite Devarim, when we already have Shemos? But R' Almoni answers that Shemos is actually weaker because of..." Does anyone know of anything like this? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 00:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend 11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in techiyat hamettim. What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:40:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby Message-ID: The Gemara in Kiddushin (73b) has the following case. 4 women give birth to baby boys in the same house and one is the wife of a Cohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin, and one the wife of a mamzer. The Gemara states that the midwife is believed to say which is the son of the Cohen, which is the son of the Levi, etc. The Ran quoted by the Beis Yosef (Even Haezer Siman 4) states that this is a takana d'rabbanon that min hatorah the midwife is not believed (because it is a davar sheberva which requires 2 kosher witnesses). This brings up the some obvious questions: 1. What did they do before this takana? It is clear that men were not around during childbirth so how was there any yichus? 2. When was this takana made? 3. How could the Torah have such an impractical approach to these matters? There Torah was given to human beings to observe and for thousands of years women gave birth with no men present. 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:56:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: By coincidence a recent daf yomi (kiddushin 72b) discusses the future status of mamzerim. The following is a non-literal translation of an article by R Avihud Shwartz from yeshivat har etzion. Anyone who wishes to see the Hebrew can request me to forward the original. This is not a continuation of the previous discussion. The gemara says that R Yose says that in the future (le-atid le-vo) mamzerim and netinim will be tahor while R Meir disagrees. The gemara followed by Rif and Rosh pasken like R Yose. Tosafot asks why the need for a psak on events that will only occur le-atid le-vo. The Rosh answers that the gemara is talking about a safek mamzer. But even R Yose agree that cannot solve the problem of a certain mamzer. R Yose is teaching that there is no need to distance from safek rmamzers today since even in the future they will not be revealed. Hence, R Yose is teaching a practical halacha for today. The Rashba says the gemara does occasionally pasken on future questions and so takes the gemara literally. He is then left with the question how can the prohibition against marrying a mamzer disappear le-atid lavoh. The Rashba has an amazing answer. In the generation before the Eliyahu the rabbis will allow mamzerim as an emergency measure (horaat shaah) but when the Moshiach comes they will be pasul. So according to the Rashba at the time of the geulah there will be a one time heter allowing known mamzerim. To explain this Rashba R Shwartz that a condition for the geulah is the achdut of the nation. Mamazerut introduces a separation among Jews. Therefore for one generation the nation will have a complete achdut between families. During the "regel" all Jews are chaverim (Chahiga 27) . One explanation is that that during the holiday everyone is assumed to keep the rules of taharah. However another explanation is that during the holiday everyone is consider a chaver as part of achdut of the people. R Yose sees mamzerut as a type of Tumah and as the Moshiach comes close this tumah will be removed. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:19:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:19:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524091930.GB15539@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) : that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. ... : What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down : bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, : chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large : percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" : halacha. Well, since you already are reading this midrashically, how about... Someone who doesn't bow at modim isn't being used literally, but as a description of a kind of ingrate. Mouths the words of thank you, but isn't moved by them. And perhaps the point being made by the Zohar is that kifui tovah can be the first step, the point at which a soul goes off course and ends up -- after a downward spiral through worse offenses -- not being revivable at techiyas hameisim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:34:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:00:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see : http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ : and especially : http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 : In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even : greater... The thing is, though, the conversation before this one, which I am presuming motivated this post, was in particular about kibud av va'eim. Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. : children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises : him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful : for this is also greater. Off topic: When prospective fathers call me asking for advice about adoption, one of my first pieces of advice is that you can only do it right if you're being as selfish about it as any other man looking to become a father. If you are doing it because you can look at the child and see in their behavior and personallity some continuation of yourself into the future, fine. But a child needs parents to grow into a healthy adult, not baalei chessed. And I'm not sure if teaching a child this line of reasoning is healthy. It gets in the way of viewing themselves as part of the family's shalsheles. On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 04:10:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I never found much written about the : meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times : influenced the decisions. I think part of the problem is that much of this has to be done subconsciously. The conditions of the times change the metzi'us about which the poseiq rules. And also the poseiq has to try his best to come up with an answer based on the Torah rather than zeitgeist, but no human being's best will ever fully exclude the mood of their era. So the second people start discussing how the times impact pesaq, the discussion itself will change the answer -- and in ways that add rigidity to halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 03:14:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:14:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> References: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. > But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos > of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? I am answering for R Zilberstein so take my words with a grain of salt. First the thrust of the shiur was on the rights of the adopted parents and not on the mitzva of kibud av ve-em. He thus stressed that the adoptive parents have a right to all decisions (apitropus) on the child and not the genetic parents. In particular they make all the decisions concerning education etc including the wedding. As part of the argument he mentioned the zecher shlomo (and chida) that Avraham owed no kibud to Terach once he handed him over to Nimrod. Thus kibud av disappered (pakah) once Terach abandonded Avraham. Since it was not the topic of the shiur he did not discuss if the mitzvah to honor the adoptive parent was mi-deoraitam derabban or something else. I brought from Rav Melamed that it is "only" because of hakarat hatov but he stressed In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children Of course if the adoptive parents are abusive there is certainly no requirement of kibud or hakarat hatov. > Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there > still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein > that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. >> I again refer to YD 240:18 where the Ramah states that there is no mitzva of kibud av ve-am when the parent is a rasha. I also explicitly brought from R Zilberstein that the halachot of mourning are different and that one is required to sit shiva and say kaddish for a parent who is a rasha including one who abandonded the child and presumably an abusive parent. I also brought from Rav Schachter (second hand) that if sitting shiva for an abusive parent would present psychological problems than the child is not required to sit shiva. I would personally explain RHS that strong psychological pain can be pikuach nefesh and overrides shiva and kaddish which are only derabbanan > I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to > the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would > treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. again look at YD 240:18 with Shach, Taz, Pitchei Teshuva etc -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:31:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:31:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies > are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? > I don't think there is any issue here: babies are issued identity bracelets literally seconds after they are born, long before they leave the delivery room. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:40:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57444BBF.209@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:37 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting > down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than > murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar > large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a > "minor" halacha. I don't know how minor this is. Think about it; we're not talking about someone who never comes to shul, and never hears Modim in the first place. What kind of person comes to shul, hears Modim and knows what it is, and yet doesn't bow? Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion of politics real estate er, the Daf. Yes, definitely the Daf. Even if you're deep in, er, the sugya, so long as you're aware that the chazan is saying Modim, you bow. The kind of person who comes to shul and *doesn't* bow at Modim must have some kind of agenda, like the fellow who says "Modim Modim", or "Al Kan Tzipor...", and thus is a pretty serious sinner. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 06:46:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:46:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: <politics real estate er, the Daf. >> The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Looking at it again Tosafot (appears on 16b) asks the same question that I mentioned that all Jews have a share in the world to come. Nevetheless as I mentioned Kaf HaChaim brings a Zohar that one does lose one share in the world to come for not bowing at modin. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 09:46 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back >> bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion >> of politics real estate er, the Daf. > The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim > in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking > about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:38:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: <> I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 13:47:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:47:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744BDCB.7010207@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:38 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. Not to adopting, but to pretending that the child is not adopted, which was the fashion in the early and middle 20th century. By the '70s this fad had mostly passed, and it became accepted that adopted children need to know the truth from the beginning. > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. > see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 See the last piece, at the end of page 2, by R Eliezerov, which explains the confusion that some people have. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:02:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:02:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> Message-ID: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at > modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:05:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:05:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> Message-ID: <5744C20F.1030206@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 05:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at >> modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. That is clearly not whom the gemara or the zohar means. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 20:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 03:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years >his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years >and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara >literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) > >I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) >that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. >First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in >techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend >11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in >techiyat hamettim. Interesting. Is the Kaf haChaim, and the Zohar, interpreting the gemara in?Bava Kamma 16a? http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41181&st=&pgnum=106 https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%90_%D7%98%D7%96_%D7%91 That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, allegorically, to mean?that those people won't be resurrected? Kol Tuv,Josh Waxman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 03:14:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:14:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: As you know, the question of whether a Bar Mitsva boy continues counting Sefira is the topic of much discussion and Bar Mitzva derashot. Sefardi Poskim tend to assur, Ashkenazi tend to be lenient. But one of the major arguments in favor of a BAR mitsva boy continuing to count is that before Bar Mitzvah he was rabbinically obligated (mi-derabanan) because of Hinnukh. I was recently asked about what to advise a BAT Mitsva girl who has been carefully counting every night - under the same conditions. It would seem that in contradistinction to a minor male, there is no obligation of hinnukh on minor females to count sefira. Indeed, a parent has no obligation of hinnukh on mitsvot that will not be obligatory when the child becomes an adult. Hence, a parent need not train his daughter in mitsvot aseh she-haZeman gramman. See R. Yehoshua Neuwirth, The Halachoth of Educating Children, Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1999) Dinim Kelaliyyim, parag. 2, p. 2; R. Barukh Rakovsky, ha-Katan ve-Hilkhotav, I, ch. 2, no. 7. So I think that - even according to the lenient Ashkenazic sources - it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. But she should definitely continue counting (without a Berakha) because counting is the ikkar mitsva - not the berakha. If someone has sources or solid grounds to be meikeil - I'd be happy and thankful to hear them. Kol Tuv Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 06:48:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:48:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?_May_a_Chassan_May_a_Chassan_who_is_get?= =?windows-1252?q?ting_married_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omerwho_is_getting_mar?= =?windows-1252?q?ried_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omer_shave_earlier_in_the_day?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_on_the_32nd_of_the_Omer=2C_before_shekiah=3F?= Message-ID: <1464184133111.74887@stevens.edu> >From OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a Chassan who is getting married the night of Lag B?Omer shave earlier in the day, on the 32nd of the Omer, before shekiah? What is the halacha concerning relatives and other guests attending the wedding? A. The prevalent custom is that one may get married on the night of Lag B?Omer. The halacha in general regarding shaving is to wait until after sunrise on the morning of Lag B?Omer. Rav Belsky zt?l ruled that the chassan and the fathers of the chassan and kallah may shave on the 32nd day of the Omer before shekiah. Other family members and guests should not shave before shekiah. Rav Belsky zt?l did permit them to bring a shaver to the wedding and shave there after shekiah. (See ???? ????, Volume One, pages 109 ? 110) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 10:24:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:24:17 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] expulsions Message-ID: why could not the Dannites leave the megadef in their midst, what would have been so terrible? it was brought in the name of the Alter of Kelm that you see from here how important to remove bad influence from their midst [and Dan were not considered the cream of the crop]. this may be a source for those that disagree with the tack that removing students from an educational mossad should not be done easily , as pikuach nefesh. the nefesh in question according to the Alter would be the rest of the institution..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 08:44:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:44:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?May_I_listen_to_slow_music_during_sefir?= =?windows-1252?q?as_ha=92omer=3F?= Message-ID: <1464277506499.46892@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May I listen to slow music during sefiras ha?omer? A. Music should not be listened to during sefira whether it is fast or slow, even though slow music is less prone to stimulate one to dance. Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim I:166) questions whether one may listen to music for enjoyment throughout the year, and concludes that although throughout the year there are lenient opinions, but during the period of sefira one must be strict. If one was in a state of moodiness or discontent, Rav Belsky zt?l was of the opinion that even during sefira he may lift his spirits with slow music, provided he does not listen excessively. (See ???? ????, Volume One, p. 106) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 11:32:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:32:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. >> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Yichud%20Prohibition%20-%20Part%201.htm The article does bring other poskim including the LR who were strict. Rav Jachter's conclusion is: Obviously, anyone to whom this issue is relevant should consult his Rav for a ruling. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 14:42:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:42:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160526214223.GA15628@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The : gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: :> Lo sochal alav chametz :> Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos :> Do not eat chametz with it :> For seven days you will eat matzos : Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. But this is derashah, not sevara. : .... Why should we resort to a lomdishe : juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for : us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: :> Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos :> Ki lo chametz :> Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah :> They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza :> Because it did not become chametz :> Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay : Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become : chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* : become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. Except that this is a historical statement, descriptive, not prescritive. Their wheat dough was matzah because it happened not to become chameitz -- for reasons the pasuq wants us to notice. Teshu'as H' keheref ayin. And peshat is a pasuq in chumash like in all of Tanakh is more concerned with Mussar than halakhah. It's not a halakhah book at the expense of being a Mussar book. As they say about ayin tachas ayin, peshat is values, derashah exists to provide the halakhah givien the mapping of those values to a limited reality and limited humans. But does that "ki" mean that the lack of becoming chameitz is a defining feature? Maybe a lack of sirchon would also be good lehalakhah, but didn't come up. (Given how much more available wheat was in Egypt.) "Ki" could refer to sufficient cause, you are assuming the pasuq means necessary cause. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 33rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total Fax: (270) 514-1507 submission to truth, and what results? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 19:23:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:23:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> On 05/26/2016 02:32 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah > > There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. > Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's > forbidden, and that's that. >> > > Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 04:13:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:13:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:21:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Asher Weiss Re: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Despite what I wrote two hours ago, I was just notified by my Brother Dov that he discussed the issue with Rav Asher Weiss Shlita last night at his Thursday night Shiur in Har Nof Jerusalem. Rav Asher holds that as long as there is continuity, the girl can continue counting with a berakha after her bat Mitsva. Yiyasher Kochacha and Shabbat Shalom Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il ________________________________ From: Aryeh Frimer Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:13 PM To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 08:44:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:44:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim Message-ID: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Off line conversation that I'm belatedly moving to Avodah: I asked: Starting at 21:6 (then 21:8, and etc etc.) the phrase "lechem Elokim" is used a number of times. Onkelos translates lechem as korban each time -- which is exactly what one would guess. While my Hebrew isn't great, I couldn't find a single mention of this in my Mikraos G'dolos (just about every mention of that pasuk talks about the first part of the pasuk, about forcing a Kohen to give a get). Perhaps it's just so obvious that lechem means korban here, that it's literally unremarkable. But, still, the use of the word "lechem" seems odd to me. It's as if the Torah is going out of its way to make things sound _more_ anthropomorphic, more primitive, than it needs to. (Granted -- now that I think about it, the phrase "rayach nichoach" also seems gratuitously anthropomorphic -- but: (a) there is some commentary on that phrase; and (b) perhaps we hear "rayach nichoach" so often we're just used to it.) Does anybody have any thoughts on why the Torah, after using the words "korban" or "olah" this entire Sefer, suddenly switches to "lechem" in this perek? R Seth Mandel answered: : From a linguistic point of view, I do not consider the usage remarkable. : This is the House of HQBH, and the qorbanot are His Daily Portion. : The use of the word lechem to describe "portion/allotment" I consider : a perfectly normal, if poetic, term. R MIcha Berger responded: ... It would be interesting to confirm this... Does anyone associate Vayiqra 21 with qorbanos that are forced by the calendar, to the exclusion of chatas, asham, todah, etc...? Does qedushas kohanim have more to do with such qorbanos than others? (And if so, does this relate to which qorbanos were allowed on bamos back in the days of bamos?) Anyone else have any thoughts? (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this significant at all?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 09:11:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:11:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim In-Reply-To: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: <574871A5.80303@sero.name> On 05/27/2016 11:44 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with > "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this > significant at all?) We say twice a day "Vaydaber YKVK ... es korboni *lachmi* le'ishai, rei'ach nichochi". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 11:52:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160527185244.GB24209@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:48:27AM +0000, Joshua Waxman via Avodah wrote: : That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is : located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, : allegorically, to mean that those people won't be resurrected? Teaser for my post But the name of the city was "Luz" originally by micha ? [15 Kislev '765] - Fri, Dec 16, 2005 And he [Ya'aqov] called the name of that place Beis-el, but the name of the city was Luz originally. - Bereishis 28:19 Luz, the original name for Beis-el, is apparently the name of a kind of tree, usually translated "chestnut". It's one of the kinds of wood from which Ya'aqov avinu made sticks for the sheep and goats to look at... Bereishis Rabba (69:8) discusses the amazing properties of living in the city of Luz: * They always told the truth. * No one in the city died. When people got old and tired, they needed to move out for nature to take its course. * The city was never conquered by Sancheirev, and wasn't destroyed by Nevuchadnetzar at the end of the first commonwealth... Luz is also the name of a special bone in the body, where the skull and spine meet. Two medrashim associate the luz bone with Hadrian y"sh.... Luz seems particularly connected with Yaiaqov, the one who renames it. First, his service of G-d centers around emes, truth, the middah exemplified by the citizens of Luz. He uses the luz sticks... ... The mishnah says "derekh eretz qodmah laTorah -- proper behavior in society is a prerequisite to Torah." Our aggaditos and midrashim seem to converge on underscoring that point. Luz is the city of truth, it has the permanence of truth both territorially and in the lifespans of its inhabitants. And it's truth, the personality trait about which Yaiaqov centers his service of Hashem, which determines techiyas hameisim. All of these medrashim refer to Luz, to the trait. When referring to applying the pursuit of truth to Torah study or worshipping Hashem, then we progress from Luz to Beis-el. The stick shows the influence of environment... The bone luz is situated just where the mind connects to the body. It is therefore, in a very real sense, "beis keil", G-d's "home" in this world. Ya'aqov builds a circle of stones in which to sleep at this spot, which -- as R' Hirsch notes ad loc -- is the first home of Israel. He gets a vision of a ladder between heaven and earth, an externalized luz bone between mind and body. Once one has the foundation of "Luz", one has the proper personality and attitude to provide some solidity in time and in social context. Then one is capable of building that derekh eretz into Torah, making their soul a house of G-d. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 34th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 and maintain a stable relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 29 05:36:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 08:36:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> References: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160529123638.GB24648@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:23:15PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>> There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. :>> Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's :>> forbidden, and that's that. :> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. : No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you : were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. OTOH, given the size of the observant American community loyal to RMF's pesaqim, anything he says can't simply be dismissed as "rare" either. RYBS was meiqil as well. And, FWIW, was R' Zvi Flaum, a talmid of R' Dovid Lifshitz's - now RY of Shaarei Tzion, oour LOR back when we adopted and the question first arose. I am also curious... RMMS pasqened? Didn't he generally delegate that role to others, leaving himself as head mashpia / moreh derekh, rather than moreh hora'ah? Did this somehow become an emotionally charged machloqes, like eruv for some reason tends to? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 36th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in Fax: (270) 514-1507 being a stable and reliable partner? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 05:25:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:25:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: R. Aryeh Frimer posits that a girl who becomes Bat Mizva during sefira should not continue counting with a bracha after becoming bat mitzva, since, unlike a boy, she had no mitzva to count as a minor because of chinuch. I find this very counterintuitive; on the contrary, it seems to me that a girl has more reason to continue counting with a bracha than a boy. A boy upon becoming bar-mitzva during sefira goes from a status of non-chiyuv (obligation) to chiyuv; one may question whether what he counted in a state of non-chiyuv "counts" when he enters a state of chiyuv. On this point, some poskim say that there was a chiyuv all along, at least rabbinically, so no fundamental change took place; some disagree. A girl, on the other hand, has no chiyuv either before or after her bar mitzva; in this respect, nothing changed at all when she became bat mitzva. Thus, if the girl has been making a bracha on sefira throughout the sefira period, in keeping with Ashkenazi practice, it seems to me that she should continue to make a bracha on sefira after becoming bat mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:42:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:42:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas Message-ID: my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 08:34:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:34:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parshah Dual Dichotomy 5776 Message-ID: <1464622469992.18876@stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6863 For many of us in the know, as well as to the surprise of anyone who might be thinking of traveling to or from Eretz Yisrael, say anytime from after Pesach until Shabbos Chazon, right before Tisha B'Av, something is off. I am referring to the weekly parshah, which would not be the same regularly scheduled one in Chutz La'aretz as it is in Eretz Yisrael. Truthfully, this type of dichotomy actually happens not so infrequently, as it essentially occurs whenever the last day of a Yom Tov falls on Shabbos. In Chutz La'aretz where Yom Tov Sheini is halachically mandated,[1] a Yom Tov Krias HaTorah is publicly leined, yet, in Eretz Yisrael (unless by specific Chutznik minyanim[2]) the Krias HaTorah of the next scheduled parshah is read. This puts Eretz Yisrael a parshah ahead until the rest of the world soon 'catches up', by an upcoming potential double-parshah, which each would be read separately in Eretz Yisrael. See the above URL for much more about this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:18:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jack Stroh via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 18:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> References: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Message-ID: <20160531013511.GA21014@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 02:18:52PM -0400, Jack Stroh via Avodah wrote: : Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with : Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the : disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. Back a step... Our current leining schedule post-dates Chazal, the standardization ceoms from the geonim. And originally it was in use in Bavel. In EY, 3 or 3-1/2 year leining systems were more common. So the systme was designed for chu"l; the parshios chu"l shuls aren't doubling up aren't supposed to be doubled. It's Israel that slipped out of proper alignment with geonic intent. So the question really is why doesn't Israel fall back into line and minimize their drift from the original geonic schedule. Well, this year there are no doubled parshios for them to split until Matos-Masei -- just in time to realign Devarim with the 9 days. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 02:17:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:17:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children Message-ID: <> <> I agree with Micha. I again bring a list of prominent poskim who agree with RMF so it certainly is not a solitary opinion. I would strongly argue that in practice most people follow the lenient opinion. The article I previously quoted brought those to disagreed and concluded that one should check it out with his local rabbi. He certainly did not dismiss the lenient opinion. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. Rav Nachum Rabinovitch (the prominent Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivat Hesder of Maaleh Adumim) is cited in Techumin 10:317 by Rav Azariah Berzon as agreeing with the aforementioned Poskim who permit adoptive parents to have Yichud with their adoptive children. Rav Rabinovitch notes that Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:08:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:08:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160531180845.GA12478@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:17:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Rabinovitch notes that : Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. R' Zundel Salant says that it was the zekhus of adopting the children of those who died in makas choshekh that we were redeemed from Mitzrayim. Since we are obligated to remember yetzi'as Mitzrayim, I can't call it "time immemorial", but since our birth as a nation, certainly. >From : Chamushim Hashem brought the nation around, via the path of the desert, the Red Sea; and the Children of Israel arose chamushim (to be defined) from the Land of Egypt. - Shemos 13:8 ... and the Jews enthusiastically departed from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Unqelus (ad loc) ... with good deeds... - Jerusalem Targum (ad loc) ... one in five. -Tanchuma (Warsaw ed. #1), Mechilta ... and the Jews departed with five infants from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Yonasan (ad loc) Rashi defines "chamushim as "armed", which underlies the Targumim of Unqelus and Yerushalmi. Armed in a spiritual sense, prepared with good deeds. Another definition would be from chameish, five, leading to the medrash concluding that only 1/5 of the Jewish were saved from Egypt. Rashi adds that the other 4/5 of the population died in Egypt during the plague of darkness. These were the people who didn't merit redemption; those who believed in the Egyptian paganism and wanted to stay. Deriving chamushim from the number five is also the point of departure for the Targum Yonsan's "departed with five infants." But the medrash on Shemos, describing the Egypt experience, told us that we had six children at a time. How then can the Targum Yonasan here mean that every Jew left with five children, as though this smaller number is something that should impress us? The Be'er Yoseif therefore believes the naive read of the Targum Yonasan is incorrect. Instead, the Be'er Yoseif explains all these targumim in light of each other. The word chamushim was chosen not despite the ambiguity, but because of all its connotations. Four fifths of the Jewish people died rather than being saved. But what about their children? The youth didn't deserve death, even if they agreed with their parents -- as children, they aren't accountable or punishable for their crimes. The Be'er Yoseif explains that this means that each of the 600,000 men left Egypt had to have left with five families of children -- his own, and those of four families left orphaned by this punishment. Far more than the six-at-a-time that were born to them. This is not only the intent of the Targum Yonasan, but also, raising others' children the "good deeds" of the Jerusalem Targum, as well as the "zerizus", the enthusiasm, of the Targum Unqelus. They were prepared and surrounded by the mitzvah of taking in these children in need. Today we think of adoption as something someone does when they r"l can't have children of their own. However, in light of this devar Torah, we see that this mitzvah played a central role in defining us as a people. According to the Be'er Yosef, it is the merit of adopting orphans that rendered us ready for the redemption from Egypt! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 09:15:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ie in ghettoized Europe , the Accursed Wandering Jew was only the killer of the 'saviour'; not much better in Moslem Middle East. In Modern Times, it can't refer to the million chassidim , to whom isolationism is the ideal , not to mention theologies of the value of the gentile. In Litvish models, ideally the Jew should be confined to the beis medrash , and the spouse 'kvoodah pnima'. It is only the lack of Manna that interferes and forces bedieved one out of the ghetto. The OTD Jews of the last 200 yrs who have impacted every walk of life and every class of endeavor in academia , commerce , culture and liberal polity can not have been what chazal had in mind. The Israel model is the most vilified political entity on Earth. If it's only a messianic concept , then it has nothing to do with the Jews , only the Messiah. so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:40:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:40:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? > > SNIP > > so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, > practically. > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or they need work in this area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 03:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:25:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/31/2016 9:40 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in > Yishayahu. It is a real concept. No, it is not. > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? The phrase ohr l'goyim doesn't exist. There are three verses where something similar exists. Isaiah 49:6 says that Hashem has placed us l'ohr goyim. Isaiah 42:6 also says that Hashem placed us l'ohr goyim. And Isaiah 60:3 says that nations will walk in our light. There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us. And it's not for any specific generation, I don't think, but all of them. We are the example. Whenever I hear "ohr l'goyim" it irks me, because it's such a mistake. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> References: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160601165119.GB20066@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:25:31PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The : former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the : nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among : nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us.... This is clearly peshat in Yeshaiah 60:3, "beholkhu goyim le'oreikh..." But "le'or goyim", in 42:6 and 49:6... I would have said something close to the reverse; to me le'or goyim sounds more like an imperative. An or lagoyim is a descriptive construction. Yeshaiah would be saying that we are light for the nations. L'or goyim is more prescriptive, we are "to provide light for nations". Not as a light, but in to be one. And it's up to us to actually illuminate. BTW, according to Rashi (42:6) those goyim are the shevatim, not other nations. And according the Metzudas David, it's a messianic prophecy, not an imperative before-hand. The thing is, we're obligated to serve as a nation of kohanim in the here-and-now regardless of Yeshaiah. So I see this as a discussion of peshat in the pesuqim, with no pragmatic difference to hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 39th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliable person? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:22:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:22:27 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it >> practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. > It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then > show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other > nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or > they need work in this area. my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of humanity in all generations; except possibly recent times, when those clearly NOT living a halachic life are seen by some at least to have been a source of blessing... furthermore, we fast on the day the Bible was translated, so we can't even say that the other Abrahamic religions is the explanation, since they become in a sense Fruit of a poisonous tree, to use the legal analogy From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 02:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:58:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: I am gratified that my understanding that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during the sefira period can continue to count with a bracha was also expressed to RAFrimer by RMH. Unlike RAFrimer, I do not think that this this constitutes a "fundamental misunderstanding" of brachot women make on time-bound mitzvoth, according to the Rema and standard Ashkenazic practice. If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her chiyuv-level not having changed. I am completely unsurprised that Rav Asher Weiss paskened that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during sefira can continue counting with a bracha, based on his understanding of the mitzvah of sefirat haomer, as appears in Minchat Asher Vayikra chapter 51. R. Asher asks a series of questions that indicate that sefirat haomer is different from other mitzvoth which are performed verbally (see there). He then explains as follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting avodat Hashem. Shofar, lulav, matza are examples of the former. Biur chametz and maakeh are examples of the latter. We make brachot on both categories of mitzvot, but there are differences between them. Sefirat Haomer is a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the mitzvah itself; the avodaat Hashem of sfirat haomer is knowing the count every day, not saying the words themselves. Saying the words is the action by which the desired result is achieved (unlike other verbal mitzvoth like kriyat shma and hallel in which saying the words themselves is avodat Hashem). R. Asher explained elsewhere that mitzvot in which the tozaa is the mitzvah do not require kavana , which is why someone who answers the question "what's the count tonight?" without intending to perform the mitzvah of sefira is nevertheless considered to have performed the mitzvah. In sefira, when a day is counted, when the result of the counting has been achieved (the person knows, by counting, what day it is), the mitzvah has been done. My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) , even if strictly he is not obligated; when he becomes a gadol, he is considered not to have missed any days, and can continue to count with a bracha. As Rav Asher explicitly paskened, this applies to a k'tana as well. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 04:36:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:36:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25c18a21-7bfc-78f4-f9a0-30ba738263a7@zahav.net.il> To give a metaphor: If the machine generating the light is working improperly, the light could be dangerous and it needs to be sent out for repair. Without getting into the question of how the machine broke down (God directing or us choosing to break it), it is clear that if we aren't doing the job, a tikkun is required Ben On 6/1/2016 6:22 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged > history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of > humanity in all generations; From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 07:33:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:33:30 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>>It shows we or they need work in this area. ---- meila i can understand blaming us . but to blame 'they' , the goyim is saying they refused to hear the gospel..... >>>>>>If the machine generating the light is working improperly ---- or properly working light, just that the potential buyers threw it in garbage I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to listen to our message... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:21:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: I am responding on avodah to some remarks on arevim > So if the health minister happens to be ... anti-vaxx ..., suddenly the > halacha has to turn around?! And after the next election it turns around > again?! Look at what happened in Israel two years ago, when German > was health minister and decided to end fluoridation. Now Litzman is > restarting it. Was everyone supposed to change their minds in those two > years, or accept that the truth changed, just because the government did?! This completely misunderstands the role of government rules. Besides dina de-malchuta we learn that if not for the government we would live in anarchy everyone decides for themselves what is best. Medieval philosophers and commentaries debate why one must listen to the government. Opinions range from divine rights to the king can kick you out to more modern theories that the citizens accept the rule by staying in the country and especially by accepting privileges from the government like the use of roads, army, schools etc. In consonance with the Mishna we listen to the government because without it there is chaos. The government specifies safety laws, traffic laws, tries thieves and murderers, has laws against sexual and drug abuse There is nothing in these theories about the government always being right. Obviously, governments are made from people who make decisions and different countries have different laws some more liberal and some more conservative. However in each country one is required by HALACHA to follow the government regulations (as long as they don't conflict with halacha). If the regulations change over time then yes the observant Jew much change his behavior just as he changes when doctors change their views or when a bet din changes their views. When batei dinim in different locales disagree then each community must follow their local bet din. Pointing out that a different bet din disagrees doesn;t matter one must follow the local bet din. Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. ------------------------- In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Some possibilites that have been offered include 1) There is a mitzvat aseh to listen to the rabbis 2) It is based on logic similar to above, otherwise it leads to chaos He went into a side discussion of the status of sevara (deoraita?) and a Rav Akiva Eiger. 3) The rabbis are smarter than us and so we should listen. RMA points out that there is an intrinsic problem. If the reason is too good then we are back to question that it becomes a deoraita. If it is weak then listening to the rabbis becomes wishy-washy, ie if circumstances change, if one disagrees with their reasoning etc. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 09:49:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603165041.NPMS27913.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> R S Newman has posed the question in a provocatively interesting way. Thanks! Musing out loud, is it possible that the concept applies to Torah/Torah values in addition to its people? For example, doesn't the Rambam offer that Xtianity and Islam, both "offshoots", if you will, of Judaism, have moved the world's population (at least partially, in the case of some part of Xtianity) away from A"Z? As a second data point, R Jonathan Sacks often points out how many of the world's ideas are rooted in Torah (e.g., equality (even the King!) before the law, which, in turn, gave rise to (because it was a necessary pre-condition of) democracy, etc.). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 11:04:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: <133b75.a02d7da.44832097@aol.com> ohr lagoyim when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ....so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. >>>> It began long before Chazal, in the time of Avraham Avinu. (The concept, not the exact words.) And Yitzchak and Yakov. "All the nations of the world will be blessed through you." For the incredible moral and intellectual influence the Jews have had on the rest of the world throughout history, see Thomas Cahill's book, *The Gifts of the Jews* and read Dennis Prager's review of the book in *First Things* which summarizes the book's main points. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/11/002-cahills-gift Hirsch in the introduction to his commentary on Tehillim shows that Dovid Hamelech meant for Sefer Tehillim to be used as a book of prayer by all the nations of the world and indeed, this has come to pass, with Tehillim having been translated into practically every language in the world. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:22:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:22:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:37:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:33:30AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . : so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to : listen to our message... As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those words exist anyway? RBW assumes that it does, and therefore if we are unhappy with the rate of progress, we should asume the light needs fixing, not that its users are neglecting it. But I have no doubt that our influence has had a central role in the progress of civilization. Whether or not we consciously worked at it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 11:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:20:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier For a detailed answer see http://rabbikaganoff.com/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:11:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> References: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57539853.9030809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:22 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the > : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? > > The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? The first 11 chapters of Devarim is a tochacha. But it's not curses, which is what we usually associate with the term. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > words exist anyway? In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; that people will come to EY to do business with Shevet Zevulun, and while they're there they will do some touristing and visit Y'm to see what is to be seen, and be so impressed that they'll accept the 7 mitzvos and bring zivchei tzedek. So there's no missionising, no outreach, just us being ourselves, and those who are already prone to be attracted to the light will be attracted. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 09:04:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:04:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160605160452.GA11606@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:20:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. : The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier : For a detailed answer see : http://rabbikaganoff.com/ With all due respect to RYK, what I said earlier is historically correct: the currently leining system was designed by geonim for Bavel. So chu"l leining for the 8th of Pesach instead of Acharei-Mos was correct scheduling. It is Israel that got ahead. So the major question is why does EY wait until Matos Mas'ei to split a double parashah and fall back into sync with the design? And that's easy -- because all the double parshios before then are already split! If you want to ask why the ge'onim have us splitting all the double parshios, yes, that has to do with timing the tochachah to be 2 Shabbasos before Shavuos. But that's not a why we didn't catch up to EY yet thing -- catching up was never a goal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 05:45:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 08:45:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wrote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? There are multiple r Avigdor miller shiurim where he demonstrates clearly that Jewish ideas have slowly entered the goyishe (western) world thru us. Where Jews did not live, our teachings have yet to have the same effect (far east, Africa, etc) This is also the message of r Aryeh Kaplan in 'If You Were God' http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48970646.html See r ken Spiro's 12 part series world perfect where he demonstrates that this has occurred http://www.aish.com/sem/wp/ Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c learn from us) Its true we spent most of our history just trying to survive, but by osmosis (and more) our ideas and ideals have molded and raised the level of humanity as a whole Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 10:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:09:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> References: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> Message-ID: <57545CC9.3050301@sero.name> On 06/05/2016 08:45 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient > madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be > dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c > learn from us) The gemara says that "Israel was only exiled among the nations so that converts should be added to them". Note the passive form. Even in galus we were not expected to actively recruit gerim, but rather to live among the nations so that those who are naturally attracted to our way of life would be able to find us and avail themselves of an option that they would otherwise never know about. Not even a symbolic hishtadlus is expected of us; we are simply to do our own thing, but in a place where potential gerim will see us. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 12:46:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:46:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those : >words exist anyway? : : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; ... The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an imperative to put in conscious effort as well. My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to avodas Hashem. Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat in "le'or goyim". There is also a possibility that le'or goyim is a messianic prophecy. Like And the same questions could be raised with "Halkhu amim rabim... Ki miTzion teitzei Sorah..." De facto, it will? We must act in a way that causes Torah to be spread from Zion? Now? Le'asid lavo? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 13:00:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:00:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitzva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: In discussing the case of a girl who became bat mitzva in the course of sefira, it is instructive to consider the analysis of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik (the Rov) of the Bahag's opinion on sefirat haomer (see Harrei Kedem Volume II chapter 112). The position of the Bahag is that one who does not count one day of omer does not make a bracha on subsequent days The Rov did not accept the widely-held opinion that the Bahag holds that there is one mitzva to count all 49 days. Rather, each day of sefira is a separate mitzva. However, on each day, there is a "din mesuyam", a particular law that the previous days have been counted. If this is not true, one is counting not sequentially, but with skipping, not the count the Torah specified. Skipping a day invalidates each and every subsequent day, not the totality of the count. As is well known, according to the Bahag, one who forgot to count at night counts during the day without a bracha, but may subsequently count with a bracha. The Rov asked: according to the Bahag, does one fulfill the mitzva of sefira during the day? If so, why doesn't one make a bracha? If not, why may one continue counting subsequent days with a bracha? The Rov held that the Bahag held like Rabbeinu Tam that the mitzva of sefira is only at night, and when one counts during the day he does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all. However, when counting during the day, one does a "maase sefira", an act of counting, even if he does not perform "mitzvat sefira". This maase sefira makes his counting connected, and he can continue counting with a bracha, although there was one day on which he did not perform the mitzva of sefira at all. According to the Bahag, one who forgot to count the 49th night gains nothing by counting the following day, since one does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all during the day. Counting during the day is not in itself a mitzva, but only helps to enable counting subsequent days with a bracha. Even if one were to say that a katan (minor) does not have a chiyyuv (obligation) to count sefira, and a katan that counts has not performed the mitzva of sefira, nevertheless his count is a "maase sefira", an act of counting. In this way the count of a minor is similar to counting during the day; it is a masse sefira which enables one to continue counting with a bracha, even when the katan becomes a gadol. Clearly, this applies to a minor girl exactly as it does to a minor boy. The Rov noted that even if one were to know that he will not be able to count every night until Shavuot, he counts every night with a bracha until he misses, since each night's count is a separate mitzva, and skipping a future night will not invalidate a previous night's mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 23:49:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:49:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 6/5/2016 10:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > : >words exist anyway? > : > : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; > ... > > The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort > and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an > imperative to put in conscious effort as well. > > My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a > statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being > a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? And I think the answer is "no". > So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to > shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim > either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to > avodas Hashem. Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the nations of the world. > Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. > [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, > hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. And again, no chiyuv here. > > Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... > > It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that > is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat > in "le'or goyim". No one is saying it isn't a good thing. But we prioritize, and whether a thing is an obligation or not goes into the calculation of those priorities. This isn't an obligation. To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 19:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 22:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ain machlokess bo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5b76f9d9-80e4-c222-c9e6-881437eb0fb9@gmail.com> In //Dynamics of Dispute/,/ I develop the idea that the Rambam, when he says that there is no //machlokess/ /b'payrush mekubal miSinai/,/ he does not mean that there were no disputes *about* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. He means that there was no disagreeing *against* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. In note 12 (p. 82) I wrote that in addition to indications that this is so from other writings of the Rambam and their applications to talmudic sources, The //Mevo HaTalmud//, attributed to Shmuel HaNaggid, indicates this definition of the word //machlokess// as well. I have just found that the Meiri on Avos 5:19, regarding a different subject, explicitly gives this definition to the word //machlokess//, explicitly negating it in the other sense. He writes: It seems to me that [the use of the word] ''machlokess'' attaches only to the one who responds to the first [speaker]. I.e. ...when a second person responds [to the first] and says, ''What you say is proper to do is improper, or what you taught is wrong,'' this [response] is the ''machlokess.''...the "machlokess" only refers to one of the two sides, the one that responds to the first. Another way to put it: Sometimes the word //machlokess/ /refers to an opposing opinion, not to two or more opposing opinions. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 05:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:56:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> >> No one is saying it isn't a good thing. ..To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. R Avigdor miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 09:22:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:22:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. ------ the only problem i have with their approach is that , had the Jewish people been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies their job was basically done---since a billion xtians then took over , and a billion moslems after that . the direct interaction of jews w goyim in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to have minimal direct impact . where jews have major impact in modern times , in science , entertainment , ,media etc are ways that clearly were not only not what Scripture had in mind, but in many cases directly contravening Tradition.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 04:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:56:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R > Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the > requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo > tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban > becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita > is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 12:49:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:49:09AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to :> shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim :> either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to :> avodas Hashem. : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the : nations of the world. So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a tzivui? :> Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. : Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. (I just noticed this tied to "mamlekhes kohanim" quite smoothly.) We also see from hilkhas geneivas aku"m that chilul hasheim and qiddush hasheim involve whether we ch"v distance aku"m from AYH or merit to draw them closer. So I guess we could add qiddush hasheim and avoiding chilul among the list of potetial imperatives that say le'or goyim in more clearly tzivui terms. Going back to the parshanus of le'or goyim... RET posted on Areivim in 2012 (quoted then by RnCL, with permission at , quoting IE and the Radaq (49:6) that le'or goyim refers to Yeshaiah's nevu'ah 00 the light is the nations seeing that his nevu'ah was fulfilled. And thus not about the Jewish people at all. To which RnCL replied citing the Rashi (as I already wrote, in one place he takes "goyim" to mean shevatim, and thus uplifting other Jews) and then quotes the other Radaq (42:6) and translated: > And so you would be also l'or goyim like it says "And nations shall > walk to/in your light -v'helchu goyim l'orech" [Yeshiyahu 60:3 - where > it is pretty clear that it is the nation Israel being talked about] > and the light is the Torah that shall go out to them from Tzion. And then translating Metzudas David (ad loc): > L'or goyim - to light the eyes of all the nations to know that Hashem > hu haElokim. Closing with her own thesis: > And indeed I think that it is the other pasuk quoted by the Radak, ie > v'helchu goyim l'orech that is the one that is the real source for the > common understanding which is usually labelled as Or l'goyim. That pasuk > is quoted all over the place (unlike l'or goyim), for example in dozens > of places in midrash raba, tanchuma, pesikta d'rav kahana etc And a lot > of the commentary in the various midrashic sources involves analogies > between the shemen zayis that lights the Beis HaMikdash and Yisrael who > lights the world -eg Shemos Raba which goes on to say and so our fathers > were called zayis because they gave light to all with their emunah. > > That is, to my mind, the concept which we understand to be or l'goyim is > unquestionably there in the sources - it is just generally drawn from a > psuk that is much more of a mouthful (Yeshiyahu 60:3). L'Or goyim, does, > it would seem according to all the classic commentators, mean a light to > the nations, as we would understand it, but, at least on one of the two > pasukim where it is used, it is understood as referring to Isaiah himself, > not the Jews in general (but note that it is clearly a good thing, > and high praise of Isaiah, that he should be considered this). And, > as so often seems to be the case (and as discussed with tikun olam) > the phrase which tends to roll off the lips in the common parlance is > not the strictly correct biblical terminology, but the one that sort of > sounds right to the ear of the layperson to get to the concept of which > they are aware. To continue her thought to focus on 60:3, I see BB 75a explains vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as a messianic prophecy, and someting HBH will do, not even hilkhisa demeshichasa. Metzudas David: "As to say, from you they will learn the ways of Hashem and you will light their eyes." Also, not clearly a tzivui. The Tanya 1:36 takes "vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as messianic, and thus not a tzivui for the here-and-now The Malbim takes the pasuq as prophetic and descriptive, linking the seifa, "yeilekhu leneged zarchakha" to "ukhvodo alayikh yra'eh" in the previous pasuq. Okay, given 60:2, we could presume 60:3 isn't imperative either. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:38:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:38:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> References: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> Message-ID: <20160606203815.GB983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:56:44AM -0400, M Cohen wrote: : R Avigdor Miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out : and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own : backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Maybe in theory we should clean up our own backyard first, but... Anyone in kiruv would question whether they are all that separable. My own most inspiring Shabbasos were in NCSY, experiencing it with people for whom it was one of their first few attempts to observe Shabbos. Similarly, anyone who has given a shiur will tell you that the topics they prepared to teach others are those they know best. And even during the shiur -- umitalmidai yoseir mikulam. Maybe if we invested effort being a mamlekhes kohanim, we would be better at avoiding messing up our own backyard too. And for a Hirschain perspective... The Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch by Rabbi Mayer Schiller http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/humanisim_rsrh.pdf Jewish Action (Summer 5759/1981) pp. 21-26. Vol.49, No. 3 On pg 24 (PDF pg 4) he quotes 19 Letters where RSRH talks about a world in which every Jew would be a mutely eloquent example and teacher of universal righteousness and universal love; if thus the dispersed of Israel were to show themselves everywhere on earth as the glorious priests of God and pure humanity... RSRH makes a duty to set an example. Not to actively teachm but not to ignore the example we set either. And then there's the Semag (Asei 74), which I translated for : I already expounded to the exiled from Jerusalem who are in Spain and the other Roman exiles that now that the exile has gone on far too long, it is appropriate for Israel to separate from the vanities of the world and grab onto the signet of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is truth, and not to lie neither to Jew nor to gentile. Not to mislead them in any way. To sanctify themselves even in what is permitted to them, as it says, "The remnant of Israel do not commit sin, do not speak lies, and one won't find a false tongue in their mouths." (Tzefaniah 3:13) And when Hashem comes to save them, the nations will say, "It was done justly, for they are a people of truth and the Torah of truth is in their mouths." But if they act with the gentiles with trickery, they will say, "See what the Holy One, blessed be He did, that chose for His portion thieves and con-men." Also, it says, "I will plant her [the Jewish People] for myself in the land..." (Hosheia 2:25) A person doesn't plant a kur [of seed] but to produce numerous kurim. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, planted Israel among the lands so that converts will join them (Pesachim 87b) and every time that they conduct themselves with trickery, who will attach to them? It seems that unless we act in a way that makes it obvious to non-Jews that our redemption would be just, the Semag expects us to continue to languish here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:39:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> On 06/06/2016 03:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I > : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the > : nations of the world. > > So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > tzivui? 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. 2) What is the origin of This idea you keep pushing, that "mamlechet kohanim" has some connection to outreach to anyone, let alone nochrim? 2a)Since when is that a kohen's job? 2b) Pshat in "kohanim" is princes, as in "uvnei David kohanim" (Rashi) This whole idea is at most, again, a nice drasha for a rov in shul, or for a mussar sefer, but certainly not relevant to halacha. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:43:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:43:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.)" What you suggested is what the Ran says, however, the Ramban explicitly rejects this idea. R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? Therefore, he explains that by dinim d'rabbanan what is not important is the actual mitzva act, but the fact that you listened to the Chachamim and did not rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:51:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I referenced who explains the Ramabam. R' Meir Simcha makes a very different assumption. He assumes that every d'rabbanan is NOT necessarily the ratzon hashem and therefore by d'rabbanans what is important is that you listen to the chachamim and not rebel, the actual action is not as important ayen sham. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 12:42:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:42:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160607194229.GA27374@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:22:53AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : the only problem i have with their approach is that, had the Jewish people : been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies : their job was basically done -- since a billion xtians then took over, : and a billion moslems after that. the direct interaction of jews w goyim : in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to Unless you think our presence had a cultural impact that explains things like why the doctrine of trinity evolved and why they don't go on Crusades anymore. On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a :> tzivui? : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. Targum Yonasan ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be called on to serve. Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. Kehunah is a duty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:22:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> On 6/7/2016 11:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:39:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <575730E4.7050400@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :>So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > :>tzivui? > : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a > : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be > : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; > : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. > Targum Yonasan You mean, of course, "Yonasan", i.e. a version of Targum Yerushalmi that a printer mistakenly attributed to Yonasan. But of course we all know that, I hope. I just expected to see the scare quotes. > ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be > called on to serve. A kohen's shimush is the avodah in the BHMK, not anything else. It's (1) a promise, not a tzivuy or a nevuah; and (2) has nothing to do with "service" to anyone. > Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many > hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against > this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in > inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job > by definition. *If* it's a job, it's a job of avodah BHMK, and the pasuk is promising that if you do as I tell you then I will award you this prestigious job. But Rashi says the *pshat* here is not a job at all, but a status. He has to say that, because al pi pshat non-bechorim were *never* intended to be kohanim meshamshim. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:01:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573627.6060306@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" > as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem > lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". 1. I think you got that backwards. Ve'atem tihyu is the prat, and Eileh had'varim is the klal. 2. I fail to see the point you're deriving from this. How does this make it a tzivuy of any kind? However you read it, it's still a promise, a proposed deal, not a command. > As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. > Kehunah is a duty. Meyuchad is not a duty, it's a status. What one is meyuchad *for* can be a duty, as here (except for the problem that non-bechorim were never intended to do avodah), but the yichud is not a duty. "Mekudeshes" doesn't mean "obligated in the duties of a wife", it's the status of being dedicated to one man, though that status by its nature *comes* with those obligations. And "harei at mekudeshes li" is certainly not a command to do those things that a wife is obligated to do for her husband. It's predicated on an understanding that she *will* do them, but it's not itself any kind of command. But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:40:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 05:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries > : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. > > Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 23:02:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:02:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: The Megilla describes how Ruth sneaks in to where Boaz is sleeping and lies down at his feet and that Boaz woke up in the middle of the night to find her there. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (19b) states that Boaz had a bigger Nisayon with Ruth then Yosef had with Potifer's wife because Ruth was single and tehora (see Rashi there). I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? I would bet that the answer for everyone (male) reading this is no. The thought would not even cross our mind. So why does the Gemara state that this was a tremendous nisayon for Boaz? It's not like there is no yetzer hara for arrayos today, there certainly is, just look around at what is going on in the world around us and even within the frum community. And yet, IMHO the average person would not see the situation described in the Megilla as a nisayon at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:09:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:09:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. Ben On 6/8/2016 8:02 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you > woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) > lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 13:01:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:01:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up Message-ID: in this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work in the long run. i wonder if the claim is true, and if so, how could there be a hetter for such a thing---multiples are riskier than singletons; i can't imagine that a posek could allow that jsut for budgetary reasons... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:23:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:23:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > > Even if that is true, why does that make it a big nisayon for boaz? It's either an issur drabbanan or doraysa for him to sleep with her. Why would he be tempted? He also happened to be an old man. If a woman came up to you and made it clear that she wants to sleep with you would you be tempted? Would that be a tremendous nisayon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:42:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:42:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] samael Message-ID: not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger of doing so? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:26:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:26:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] samael In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589BAA.7090905@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 03:42 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have > never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger > of doing so? One is not supposed to pronounce the name of *any* angel that isn't also a human name. As far as I know this is a universally-accepted rule. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 14:55:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:55:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608215544.GA2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:13:32AM +0000, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: : RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she : wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, : and never will be Chayav... I am wondering if the chiyuv of chinukh to follow minhagim may be more binding than any minhag itself. If she is counting because that's what women in her eidah do, poerhaps her post-bat mitzvah chiyuv is *less*. : To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here : regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman : geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, : Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh : haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a.] a : woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is : a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives : heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant : berakhot... And because "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" is a statement about HQBH commanding the tzibur, so there is no sheqer inan einah metzuvah ve'osah saying "vetzivanu". For that matter, how does making a berakhah on a mitzvah performed for chinukh work? And returning to the case of an edah where women are nohagos to count the omer, an Ashkenaziah would make a berakhah on a minhag too. On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote: : If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a : bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah : (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able : to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her : chiyuv-level not having changed. If in all cases, she is making a berakhah on the tzibur's command, and perhaps the over la'asiyasah is what triggers why say the berakhah now rather than some other time. I think the list of sources RAF provides speak more to what constitutes a trigger for saying the berakhah than what the berakhah is on. And lemaaseh, chinukh, minhag and einah metzuvah ve'osah are each sufficient for Ashkenazios. : ... [R Asher Weis] then explains as : follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action : (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the : result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to : achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting : avodat Hashem... Sounds like a sibling to the Brisker gavra vs cheftzah. Whether the gavra has to do the pe'ulah, or the tzotza'ah must take effect onthew cheftzah ... : My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a : mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the : mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a : maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is : definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan : counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira : (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) ... Yeah, but it's not only the child counting, it's the child's mind which knows the count. Kind of like the non-Jew made the maaqah, but on his own home! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:25:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:25:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the : government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not : knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. Many accuse the AhS of writing things that would to appeal to the govt censor. But not to distort the din, only in cases where he thought the readership would realize he was obviously doing so. Which means that the AhS can't be used as a ra'ayah, because those who disagree will simply say he *obviously* couldn't have meant it. But the idea that communal policy halakhah should follow the NIH (or your country's equivalent) recommendations because the alternative is chaos appears compelling. Assuming the poseiq things the gov't is being honest. : In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael : Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to : listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees : and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita... Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on their audience. Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently includes conflicting laws. : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo sasur cannot apply. Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 : R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to : explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim : d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do : the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that : whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we : keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. : : This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I : referenced who explains the Ramabam.... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 min. in). As is my norm, I add bits here and there. ... But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, neither to the left nor to the right"? 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between Torah and rabbinic law. 2- [My own addition] R' Shimon Shkop allows us to say the same thing, 180deg off. In Shaarei Yosher, he asks the question of why a sefeiq sefeiqah (a doubt added upon a second doubt) is ruled leniently. The Rashba (Shu"t 1:401) holds it's a variant on the notion of relying on majority... Rav Shimon explains sefeiq sefeiqa on other grounds, following the Rambam. Who said that a doubt in Torah law must be ruled stringently? It wasn't the Torah, it is rabbinic! ... So, rather than the Ramban's limiting the specific prohibition to only cases where we are certain about the realia, it's possible that we could limit the rabbinic enactment of ruling stringently on Torah law to have only been made about the other 612 laws. With the same consequent rationale. 3- Rav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (Meshekh Chokhmah, Devarim 17:11): A Torahitic prohibition describes something that is inherently wrong. The universe is made such that combining meat and milk is a problem (metu'af, meshuqatz). A rabbinic prohibition lacks that reality. Chicken and milk isn't inherently damaging, it is that it leads to error through habit or accident. Therefore, one needn't the same care when dealing with rabbinic extension as when dealing with the damaging or refining thing itself. 4- Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Qunterus Divrei Soferim): Of course there is a reality to rabbinic statements. It is all revealed from the Creator, all the Ratzon Hashem yisbarakh (the Will of the Creator, blessed be He). The difference between a derabbanan and a de'oraisa is the explicitness. Therefore it is less sacred, and violation involves lesser realities. A difference of quantity, not quality. Rabbi Rakeffet links Rav Elchanan's position to his belief in da'as Torah; both imply a belief that there is revelation of Hashem's Will today through the rabbis. 5- Shulchan Arukh haRav [another addition not in the lecture]: In a rare case of where the Shulchan Arukh haRav discusses the purpose of a law rather than just codifying practice, he discusses the significance of yom tov sheini shel galiyos, the observance of a second day of Yom Tov outside of Israel. He explains that there is no time in the heavenly realms. The supernal "Pesach" is not associated with any particular time. Hashem made a connection between that Pesach and the 15th of Nissan, giving us a worldly manifestation within time. The SAhR continues that the 16th of Nissan is connected to the very same supernal Pesach. The seder on the 2nd night is a manifestation of the same metaphysical reality. What differs is who draws down the connection, not what it is we are connected to. Perhaps this is generalizable to rabbinic legislation in general. This would result in an opinion similar to Rav Elchanan's in that it gives a reality to rabbinic law, rather than their just being pragmatics for how to keep Torah law. However, the opinions are also quite different in that it makes the rabbinic legislator a metaphysical engineer, building the reality, rather than a conduit of Hashem's revelation of that reality. And, to continue R' Rakeffet's thought, Chassidic attachment to the Tzaddiq is not the same as the Yeshiva World's notion da'as Torah. 6- Seifer Me'iras Einayim (SM"A, Ch"M 67, #2): The berakhah that Hashem gives to those who keep shemittah , that they will have sufficient crops in the 6th year for the 6th, 7th and 8th years, is only when shemittah is mandatory by Torah law. (I.e. when the majority of the tribes are in their lands, and therefore there is a yoveil every 50th year.) Today, someone who keeps rabbinic shemittah gets no such guarantees. 7- Chazon Ish (Deshevi'is 18, #4): The blessing did apply during the 2nd Temple and after its destruction, for the heavenly court fulfills based on what's decreed down below. Rabbi Rakeffet identifies the SMA with the position of the Meshekh Chokhmah, and the Chazon Ish with R' Elchanan Wassermnn's. To my mind, it's possible that his position is more like the Shulchan Arukh haRav. However, this explains why the Chazon Ish was so willing to be stringent when it came to keeping shemittah. Had he felt that the observance didn't come with insurance from the A-lmighty, perhaps he would have ruled leniently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:31:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589CB8.8080308@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 04:01 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > in this documentary > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is > claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few > babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work > in the long run. That only makes sense for women who are planning a particular size of family, and use birth control the rest of the time. I don't see how it could possibly work for women who never use birth control, and whose "plan" is to have as many children as Hashem sends. How could having more than one at a time reduce the total number of pregnancies? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 16:18:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:18:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160608231854.GC16414@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:40:42PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? : : "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. : For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* : anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". Which is why it's intransitive. I included the "Li" in my quote because the prepositional phrase was part of my point. "Lekhahein" is not the verb of being a kohein or being made a kohein, but doing a kohein's job. Also, Yeshaiah 61:10, "kechasan yekhahein pe'eir". Even any case, I found this in the Seforno on the pasuq: And with this you will be a segulah from among them [referring to "vehyisem li segulah" in the previous pasuq]. Because you will be a "mamlekhes kohanim" to understand and teach to the entire human species that all will call in Hashem's name and to serve Him "with one shoulder"... Which not only makes my diqduq point, he clealy speaks of a duty to actively instruct the world -- ROS writes "lehoros lekhol hamin ha'enoshi". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:23:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:23:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: R' Zev Zero wrote: > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand experiences with the job, too. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:50:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:50:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Authorial Programs Message-ID: I've been leading a chaburah studying the Minchat Chinuch. It's quite interesting trying to figure out why he dives into some topics in detail and others he says would be too long, or this isn't the place to discuss detail or he's "not holding" in it right now. Makes me wonder how many mechabrim have a conscious, programmatic approach versus a subconscious approach or no unifying theme. Anyone aware of any analysis? 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 Wed Jun 8 22:30:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:30:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* > a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" > on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) > The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only an asmachta. > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not > : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be > what > : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara > that > : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. > If > : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... > > His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This > would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on > their audience. > > Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently > includes conflicting laws. > That is not the Meshech Chochmas point. His point is that we as human beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the action. > : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why > : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the > : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, > : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast > : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the > : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. > > This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs > to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo > sasur cannot apply. > This is not the Ran it is the meshech chochma explaining the Rambam > Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq > de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. > ... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps > shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore > came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. > > > R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of > Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 > min. in). As is my norm, > I add bits here and there. > ... > But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic > law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, > neither to the left nor to the right"? > > 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made > the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the > case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between > Torah and rabbinic law. > This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the opinion of the Ran. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 22:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:34:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger nisayon then Yosef faced? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:22:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" is only d'rabanan. In other words, if one has a legitimate safek about whether he did a d'Oraisa, then it is a smart idea and/or a rabbinic obligation to resolve that safek, but he is not required by the Torah to do so. I don't know if the above is correct, but if it is then it could be very relevant to the current discussion. For example, a safek d'rabanan might be a sort of "sfeik sfeika", and therefore go l'kula. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 07:31:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:31:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cholov Stam Outside of the US Message-ID: <1465482641540.74929@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/hezpyyn Q: I am planning a vacation to some foreign countries, and I assume that since I drink cholov stam, I can drink the milk in the countries I visit. I wanted to double-check with you, just in case. (A consumer's question) A: It's a good thing that you contacted us! The heter of cholov stam, which was explained in the previous installment of Halcha Yomis, only pertains to countries which have adequate dairy regulations. The OU's poskim have ruled that European Union nations and other countries with well-enforced dairy regulations qualify for the heter of cholov stam. In countries where such regulations are lacking or are poorly enforced, milk remains prohibited as cholov akum and requires on-site kashrus supervision in order to be permissible. To inquire about a specific destination please contact the OU via kosherq at ou.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:43:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AAB7.5050807@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 09:22 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" > is only d'rabanan. See Shev Shmaatsa at great length on this question. I don't remember his conclusion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 09:24:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:24:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160609162401.GB31542@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowlderized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Second, being gadol hador just makes it worse. Kol hagadol mechaveiro yitzro gadol heimenu. (An idea with way too much evidence in support in the newspapers. Not the drequency of the stories, it's still man-bites-dog. But the things religious people and other role models are caught doing that most of us aren't tempted to do....) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AA0E.60404@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 05:23 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Zero wrote: > > > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. > > I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. > > Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. > "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" > > Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand > experiences with the job, too. It was expected that all of Shevet Levi would devote themselves to learning, since they had nothing else to do, and since they got in that position in the first place mostly by dint of having already been the Torah-learning class in Mitzrayim (which role they got simply by staying in the beis medrash when everyone else ran out to do their civic duty) it was natural that they would continue. Thus it was expected that they would be prominent in the Sanhedrin ("uvasa el hacohanim haleviyim") and "yoru mishpatecha leyaacov". But there was no requirement on any individual Cohen or Levi to do so; they were given land for farming around each of their cities, and by the late 2nd bayis it appears that most cohanim, or at least a large proportion of them, were amei ha'aretz, and this did not make them less Cohanim. From this I conclude that Torah is not part of the job, but rather something to do when you're *not* on the job. The actual job of kehuna was a well-paid sinecure that Hashem gave them so they would have the time to do this other thing on their own, much as one is supposed to let a Talmid Chacham sell his goods first in the market, so he can get out of there and back to his "hobby". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:08:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:08:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Message-ID: <000001d1c250$098a3600$1c9ea200$@actcom.net.il> Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. She was not a stranger accosting him on the street, she was not a work colleague (with whom there are certain professional boundaries) nor was she the girl at the checkout counter. (Platonic relationships had not been invented yet-yes, I'm being sarcastic. There is probably no such thing as a truly platonic relationship between a straight man and a straight woman, which is why we are enjoined to be tznu'im. En apotropus le'arayot, remember?) His own wife had died a couple of months before (at the start of the barley harvest) which probably meant he was lonely and certainly meant that involvement with Rut would not have been an emotional betrayal of his wife. It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. It was highly unlikely that anyone would have known about a one-time liaison between them, so there would have been no hillul haShem, and Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 07:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:30:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, Some want to distinguish between different types of safek 1) safek in the :metziut" 2) safek in the din 3) machloket poskim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 10:25:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:25:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] temimos re: last day of shavuos Message-ID: <20160610172550.NHHT21830.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> I was doing some learning with a Kollel guy in a chabura about s'firas ha'omer, and I asked RSM's famous question, pitting "tosafos yom tov" vs the minhag that the Taz mentions of waiting until the end of the 49th day to count because of "temimos." The Rav thought it was a great question, and he took it back to his Rosh HaKollel, who, among other things asked: if this is such a good kashya, why does nobody even bring it up for 200 years after the Taz? Quite "coincidentally", he ran into a 32-page packet, just produced by BMG in Lakewood, that is on this very question. So, for your interest and/or Shavous study, see , or https://www.dropbox.com/s/ig0jxw2ye3xlpjy/%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99.pdf?dl=0 (you can download it) Good shabbos and a gutten yuntiff! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 13:36:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160610203636.GA30587@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:30:15PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the : Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, .... This was discussed earlier on this thread, right before RAM's question: Me: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#03 the other RMB: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#08 :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 03:24:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:24:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20160614102429.GA26569@aishdas.org> I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that post-modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever know to be objectively true. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs... I think post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. However, I can know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. So, the folk there pointed me to Rav Shagar (Rav Shimon Gershon Rosenberg), a DL postmodern baal machashavah. Along the way, someone mentioned R/Dr Alan Brill's blog post of notes he made to himself teaching R Shagar's works. or . To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true to Ayin. Given their advice, and the hopes that I could find common language with the post-modern among my own children, I spent part of the "3 day yom tov" with R' Shagar. Given my opening rejection in post-modernism, as well as a couple of comments made by Dr Brill, I must admit I may not have been fair. Perhaps one of his fans is lurking on list and wants to clear up wht I misunderstood. As R/Dr Brill put it "The very question" in the prior sentence, not quoted, "shows that Shagar is treating postmodernism as an ism to adopt rather than the current condition of our lives like the prior existential-psychological era that we did not choice but were embedded within." R Shagar builds a case for the condition of believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. An inability to believe that something is objectively true into the belief in of an objective Ayin. Help? 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 Tue Jun 14 14:10:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:10:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 16:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:00:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <598c06.3f27511.4491e6a3@aol.com> [1] From: Micha Berger via Avodah Subject: Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? [--R' Marty Bluke] I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowdlerized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org [2] From: Simi Peters via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. .... It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. ....Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters [3] From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah Subject: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth >>I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her?<<[--R' Marty Bluke] As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. .... So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love...lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana >>>>> [1] Over the years I too have wondered about the use of the word "margalosav" instead of "raglosav" and came to a similar conclusion to RMB's, that is, since "margolios" are pearls, the pasuk might be talking about the family jewels. However I did not assume that Rus /actually/ uncovered Boaz in that way but rather, that uncovering his feet was a way to hint to him that he should uncover something else -- not that night, but in due course. That he should act as her goel, that he should marry her and have children with her. [2] Yes, Boaz liked her and admired her but when Chazal say that the evening was a great nisayon for him they are clearly saying that on that night, he was attracted to her and had the desire and opportunity to sin. The nisayon was much more than "he didn't want to hurt her feelings." And she wasn't so "lonely and socially isolated"-- she could easily have married a much younger man, as Boaz says when he speaks of her great chessed in approaching him instead of going after the bachurim. [3] The idea that he was "deeply in love with her" is a stretch but yes, he clearly had feelings for her. Until that night I would say his feelings were mainly protective and paternal -- he always called her "biti, my daughter" -- but that night, under those circumstances, a yetzer hara was aroused that does not seem to have been there before. After all, months had passed and he had not suggested marriage, which was the very reason Naomi resorted to such an unconventional strategy. [4] I want to add one more point, which is that not all old men are the same. R' MBluke started this thread by asking why this should be such a nisayon when Boaz was "the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man." That the Gadol Hador could be overtaken by illicit desires we already know from many previous incidents involving Yehuda, Shimshon, Dovid Hamelech and others. As for old men, many lose desire as well as the ability to act on their desires, but we know that this was not the case with Boaz from the very fact that he did indeed father a child with Rus. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 15:49:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:30:47AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* :> a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" :> on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) : The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo : tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only : an asmachta. And later: :> 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made :> the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the :> case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between :> Torah and rabbinic law. : This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and : then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the : opinion of the Ran. What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling you why the pasuq "lo sasur" is not an azahara, and not a complete denial that the power to make a derabanan is from the Torah. As the Ramban puts it, shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on the pasuq. Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: :>: R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating :>: explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not :>: necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what :>: Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that :>: a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If :>: every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... ... : His point is that we as human : beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when : making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the : act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to : their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the : action. I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects their legislation. Or, ein hatzibur yalhol la'amod bam, which is the category all the MC's examples demonstrate. In either case, he talks about the difference between a deOraisa, where one might ch"v eat chazir because of a safeiq and a derabbanan where, as you put it "the value is in listening to their words". It is from that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. 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 Tue Jun 14 16:24:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:24:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160614232420.GB5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:23am CEST, R Arie Folger quoted Yechezqeil ben Buzi haKohein (44:23): : Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. : "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and : profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" RAYK (MiDevar Shor 16) writes that this is why we're called "beni bekhori Yisrael". The kehunah of the bekhor, to serve as either shaliach haMaqom to the family, or their shaliach before Him. See or . Also see Mal'akhei 2:7, for a similar definition of kehunah (WRT benei Aharon): Ki sifsei khohein yishmeru da'as veSorah yebaqshu mipihu.... RAYK's point is much like the LR's words when launchind the Noachide campaign: A particular task [is] to educate and to encourage the observance of the Seven Laws among all people. The religious tolerance of today, and the trend towards greater freedom, gives us the unique opportunity to enhance widespread observance of these laws. For it is by adherence to these laws, which are in and of themselves an expression of Divine goodness, that all humankind is united and bound by a common moral responsibility to our Creator. This unity promotes peace and harmony among all people, thereby achieving the ultimate good. As the Psalmist said: "How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 04:39:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:39:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon wrote: > So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was > deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it > only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his > wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world > to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at > his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 05:25:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:25:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I agree that "deeply in love" is probably be too much - but I think it is quite plausible that he was falling in love with her, whether he realized it before that night or not. It certainly makes it much easier to understand the nisayon if that is the case. And even if romantic love is much more emphasized in our time and culture than many others, I find it unlikely that it did not exist at all in Biblical times. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 13:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:44:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> I said that ?Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her.? This is not a claim that he was ?in love with her? (nusah 21st century) and is not the projection of a Western conception of Romantic love (nusah 14th century). Men and women have always been attracted to each other and loved each other which has, b?H, ensured the survival of the human race. Yitzhak avinu is described as loving Rivka imenu (after marriage); Yaakov avinu is described as loving Rahel imenu and Mikhal bat Shaul is described as loving David (in both cases before marriage. What is being described is an emotion, not an action.) And while Shir haShirim is allegorical, the allegory describes a profound, intense and sensual love. Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. Hazal do not find strange the idea that an old man might have sexual feeling and reactions. (Consider their description of David and Avishag in the presence of Batsheva.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From: Marty Bluke [mailto:marty.bluke at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:40 PM To: Ilana Elzufon Cc: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group ; Simi Peters Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon > wrote: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 23:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:39:55PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us : projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a : situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". When it comes to Yaaqov and Rachel, we find even more explicit description of a couple who who romantically in love. "Vaya'avod Yaaqov beRacheil 7 shanim, vayihyu be'einav kayamim achachdim be'ahavaso osahh". I think that academic claims of how much the human condition has changed over the millennia need to be checked against our belief that while TSBP evolves over time, halakhah does its redemptive work for generation after generation. Yes, many things have changed. The industrialist who relates to time with the linear instruments of a clock and day planner experiences something very different than the farmer's cycles of day and night and of annual seasons. Both of which are very different than the post-telecom experience of time which is dominated by events to respond to (phone, email, text/IM), more so than a preplanned schedule. But far more stays the same than would make for good PhD theses. 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 Jun 15 23:38:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:38:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. A ra'ayah for the Ramban is Yevamos 61a, which says that zenus (eg WRT marrying a kohein) is relations between two people who are not allowed to marry. Not all two people who aren't actually married. The Rambam (lav 355) cites the Sifra, Qedoshim 77. However, the Sifra inside distinguishes between being mechalel one's daughter lesheim zenus vs not lesheim zenus. So I don't get it. 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 Thu Jun 16 01:36:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:36:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They > try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak > metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". Truthfully, I never understood that whole story. Avraham was very well known generally and certainly by Avimelech and it was common knowledge that Avraham had a "miracle" son at the age of 100 but no daughters. How could this ruse have possible worked? Additionally, how could Yitzchak and Rivka have been meshamesh bayom where someone could see them? In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came after he married her and brought her into his tent. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Simi Peters wrote: > Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud > with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not > have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: >: The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >: any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >: malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. Even the Ramban who says that there is no technical issur d'oraysa, would probably declare this kind of behaviour is naval birshus hatorah and certainly not what the Gadol Hador should be doing. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 05:47:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:47:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gemara narrative Message-ID: <23bc4e6f392f4404bbfbd7d994e281a8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you are learning gemara and you come to a give and take where the hava amina seems strange (e.g. maakot 14a where the gemaras first assumes the rabbanan learn a din from lchaleik yatzah and ask where does R' Yitzchak learn it from. Gemara answers from a different pasuk and then asks why don't the rabbanan learn it from there. the answer is ein haci nami?! -- so why record the whole misattribution of reason, and how did they know/not know) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 01:47:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:47:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling > Ramban puts it, > shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah > aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma > lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav > As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power > to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on > the pasuq. > Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that > following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu > bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With your formulation that question still arises. > Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: ... >: His point is that we as human >: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when >: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the >: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to >: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the >: action. > I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el > Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects > their legislation. If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 08:10:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:10:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616151039.GF25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:47:01AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: :> As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power :> to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on :> the pasuq. :> Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that :> following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu :> bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. : The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on : lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With : your formulation that question still arises. With a mitzvah de'oraisa, oso lav is deOraisa. We do not cook meat with milk because of a derashah from a pasuq that is specifically about oso lav -- basar bechalav. With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav. (Earlier version had "bachaleiv imo", but mentioning bird milk seems too silly even for an imaginary pasuq.) I find the question cleanly -- and to my thinking, intuitively -- avoided. AISI, my read of the Ramban is an intuitive take on the chiluq. :> Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: : ... :>: His point is that we as human :>: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when :>: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the :>: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to :>: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the :>: action. :> I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el :> Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects :> their legislation. : If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. As I said, cart-and-horse. The causality is that the rejection is being offered "in response" (kevayakhol) to the law. Not that the law is to be rejected because they failed to respond to His Will. Yes, whether A causes B or B causes A, you still end up with both. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:07:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:07:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, : the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came : after he married her and brought her into his tent. I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" in differing ways. 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 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:12:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:12:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> What are the pragmatic reasons? In particular what happens when the reason for the derabbanan no longer exists. Is there a difference on the origin of the derabbanan? One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:58:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:58:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:12:28PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos :> as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans :> which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. : What are the pragmatic reasons? Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. OTOH, a gezeirah is pragmatic -- nothing happenms to you for vioolating it. The whole thing is a means of preventing ending up committing a real sin. Is there power to lighting a menorah of Chanukah, or did Chazal just have to pick /something/ to standardize how people fulfil the general deOraisa of commemorating a neis? Second day yom tov nowadays, does it connect to some supernal koakh, as the SA haRav says? Or is it a way to keep alive memory that the calendar ought to be al pi re'iyah? : In particular what happens when the reason : for the derabbanan no longer exists. The fact that the consumer is totally disconnected from shechitah and kashering nowadays might have rendered the gezeira of owf bechalav superfluous. People have little reason to confuse the rules of one with the other. But even if it's true that the reason stated in the gemara no longer exists, would anyone would say it is therefore no longer in force? Even though the motive is pragmatic., Is this baserd on the idea that we have to be chosheshim for unstated reasons and those may not be pragmatic? What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:10:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:10:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did sleep together. I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. Ben ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah > : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get > : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:07:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:07:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> On 06/16/2016 03:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >> : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >> : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. >> >> Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. > In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did > sleep together.I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they did more than that. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:18:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. > > One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual > damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of > that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or > psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite > taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. > If one assumes that the only problem is rebellion like the netivot then milk in poultry has no spiritual damage (the problem is gavra not cheftza) > > > : In particular what happens when the > reason > : for the derabbanan no longer exists. > > What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out > any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all > to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. > Not all takanot are to protect a deoraita. In any case the original question was why we are obligated by these takanot > > : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic > : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists > > Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention > anyway. > Not all kinyanim. More importantly not every monrtary takanah in shas has to do with kinyanim. There are loads of takanot for the good of commerce. In the change from an agragrian society to a business society to a high tech society much is no longer relevant -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 01:00:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:00:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:08 PM > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, >: the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came >: after he married her and brought her into his tent. > I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. > In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in > love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in > particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" > in differing ways. Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman (40 years old, according to Hazal). Rut is a lonely woman. She knows that she is a social pariah, looked upon with suspicion as a Moabite and not likely to bask in the social glow of Naomi's connections because Naomi abandoned them all during the famine and has very little social capital herself. This is why she tells Naomi that she will go gleaning where they will let her--she's expecting to be thrown out of some places. This is also part of the reason Boaz tells her to stay in his field--he knows the social climate of his town. And Naomi is extremely surprised that Rut has come back with so much grain; it means that someone has helped her--not something Naomi expected under the circumstances. Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). The halakha was still in dispute well into the lifetime of David (Yevamot). Tov (aka Ploni Almoni) is practically in a panic when he refuses the marriage to Rut--he wants the field, but no strings attached "pen ash'hit et nahalati." Only Boaz has the guts to champion Rut's cause because he has the authority to do so, has the social clout to do so, he cares about her, and he is touched by her trust in him and her courage in coming to speak to him at the goren. Rut's acceptance into society only comes with her marriage to Boaz and Naomi's rehabilitation with her neighbors only comes with the birth of Oved. [Email #2 -micha] I believe that 'margelotav' is like 'merashotav' (Bereshit 28:11). The 'mem' is not part of the shoresh and I don't think it is a pun. It may be an oblique reference to halitza and, by extension, to yibum, a delicate way of indicating that, while what Naomi wants for Rut is not technically yibum, it is the yibum-like 'hakamat shem be'nahala'. See the perush of the Malbim on the mitzvah of yibum, where he compares the mitzvah to the yibum-like story of Yehuda and Tamar on the one hand, and Rut and Boaz on the other. When a man says to a woman, "You could marry anybody. Why have you picked me?" that is a compliment, not necessarily a statement of fact. Part of what impresses Boaz about what Rut has done is that she is willing to marry an old man when that goes against the nature of things. As Hazal say on this pasuk, a woman would prefer to marry a young, poor man rather than an old, rich man (gold diggers aside). Rut has set aside her natural inclinations in order to do hesed for her mother-in-law. The words may also be read as an expression of Boaz's sense of gratitude and wonder in finding his one-in-a- million woman (and Rut is indeed exceptional) especially at a time in his life when he did not expect to marry again. When Boaz encounters Rut he has just gotten up from shiva for his wife. Either way, Boaz is not commenting on Rut's bountiful marriage prospects, which are pretty much non-existent (as I argued in the previous post.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 05:18:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:18:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: RnSP: Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as > the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her > mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite > and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because > it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly > idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). > Does Boaz's idealism extend to not quite grasping how different his attitude towards Rut is from everyone else's? His response when she comes to the goren seems to indicate that he had assumed she had many marriage options from among the younger men. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:04:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:04:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> Message-ID: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. Ben On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > > It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same > bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they > did > more than that. > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:57:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> On 06/17/2016 09:04 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Ben > > On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> >> It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same >> bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they >> did more than that. > Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira > it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? Yes, exactly. > That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. No, it doesn't. It has no connection whatsoever to that machlokes, and I'm astonished that you see a connection. *Everyone* agrees that there is no issur mid'oraisa on a man and woman sharing a bed, even if she's *definitely* a niddah, let alone if it's only a possibility. Everyone agrees that nowadays it's assur mid'rabanan, even if she's only possibly a niddah. Everyone also agrees that nowadays there's an issur yichud even if she's definitely *not* a niddah. None of this has any connection to the machlokes about what level of issur is involved in an unmarried couple having sex. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 07:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 17 11:03:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! Message-ID: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise thought of on our own. He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: 1. A town has a single shochet. A younger shochet wants to move in to town with the latest "shochet" technology -- whatever that is. The point is that he thinks he can provide his services more efficiently and at less cost to the community. In this case, the gemara tells us (al pi this rav-writer) that the beis din of the town can decide that the town can't support the competition, and weigh the fact that the older shochet might be put out of business, etc. I.e., the beis din has a lot of room to enforce a non-competitive monopoly here. 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- competition that might provide a better product is more important than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. The point that this writer was making, again, is that this distinction is not something we might have thought on our own. I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 12:47:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 22:47:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of the wheat harvest.) So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters -----Original Message----- From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 5:13 PM To: Rn Simi Peters ; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Marty Bluke ; Rn Toby Katz Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 14:01:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:01:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> Message-ID: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same >> gezira. > > Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:39:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I'm wondering if you considered the possibility that "lo bashamayim hee" might teach us that their legislation IS His will, by definition. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 14:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:35:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom _______________________________________________ It's complex! Enjoy http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:23:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allen Gerstl via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 70 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 R' Sholom Simon wrote: > 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a > teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks > he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage > competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out > of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- > competition that might provide a better product is more important > than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. . . . > > I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they > all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! > > I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this > idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Please see http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html The above issue is discussed at about footnote 22 (about three quarters of the way down in the article) and the Gemorah cited is Baba Batra 21b-22a I recall a similar question coming before the late Rav Gedaliah Felder, the posek of Toronto and that he told a group of us participating in a shiur that he gave. He had ruled as above. KT Eliyahu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:17:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:17:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> On 06/18/2016 05:01 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >>> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. >> >> Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > > That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping > in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate > any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion > about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Sorry, you're contradicting the very Taz you're invoking. He says *explicitly* that the issue he's discussing is being in the same bed, not anything else. Because as we all know it's forbidden for a man to be in the same bed as a niddah, even if they don't touch each other. And *that* is the question the Taz asks about Boaz and Ruth. If she was a niddah then how could they be in the same bed? And he answers that the gezera had not yet been made, so she wasn't a niddah. The same answer explains how Yehuda and Tamar could have sex; the gezera that would make her a niddah hadn't yet been enacted. The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything more into it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:03:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:03:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I believe it's a Chazon Ish. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > thought of on our own. > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:45:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: <20160619034555.GA2854@aishdas.org> Anyone interested in our perrennial about minhag avos and minhag hamaqom would likely be interested in R' David Brofsky's Teasers: ... Individual Customs The Torah teaches that in addition to the obligations and prohibitions imposed by the Torah, an individual has the ability to create personal obligations (Vayikra 5:4) or prohibitions (Bemidbar 30:3), known as nedarim and shevuot ... Family Customs As we shall see below, the Talmud teaches that one is also obligated to observe the customs of one's locality (minhag ha-makom), even if one leaves the place, until permanently relocating in another place. In addition to observing the custom of one's "place," is there a halakhically binding category of minhag avot, according to which one would be obligated to follow the customs of one's family? ... Local or Communal Customs As mentioned above, the Talmud (Pesachim 50a) teaches that one is obligated to observe the "minhag ha-makom", local custom. This obligation, as we shall see, is incumbent upon the residents of that place. Where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Passover until midday one may do [work]; where it is the custom not to do [work], one may not do [work]. ... Minhag and Pesak Halakhah In addition to being bound by local extra-halakhic customs, the Talmud teaches that if it is customary in a certain place to follow a specific halakhic view, that halakhic opinion becomes binding. For example, the Gemara[39] relates: ... Gut Voch! -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 Sun Jun 19 03:33:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:33:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and other differences between biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. <> what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to protect deoraisa laws. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 02:25:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 12:25:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> References: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:27 AM, wrote: > > > In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field > until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three > months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer > until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..* > That raises a whole other set of questions, namely when and how was Rus misgayer? Rashi at the beginning of the Megila claims that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women and Rus was only megayer later. Others claim that it can't be that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women so it must be that they were megayer them. The Bach for example states that Rus was megayer to marry at the beginning and then later was megayer a second time lshem shamayim. R' Shternbuch in Moadim Uzmanim claims that they were minors and therefore when they came of age could be moche and therefore Rus was megayer a second time (ayen sham). Therefore it is pretty difficult to tie the 3 months into the geirus. In any case the din of waiting 3 months is a din drabbanan of havchana, that you should be able to tell the difference between a child conceived as a non-Jew versus a child conceived as a Jew. For all we know this din drabbanan had not yet been formulated in the days of Boaz and therefore is irrelevant. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 21:27:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:27:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> In a message dated 6/18/2016 3:48:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, familyp2 at actcom.net.il writes: So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters >>>> In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:16:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:16:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160619121630.GC24863@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:47:45PM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley : harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they : won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end : of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of : the wheat harvest.) ... I thought "ad kelos se'ir hase'orim uqetzir hachitim" referred to the end of the overlap time. Which is how I got such a tight estimate. You appear to be reading it "until the end of the barley harvest, [and then beyond, until] the end of the wheat harvest." Which, despite needing the bracketed insertion, is quite plausible. But not the assumption I had been working with. In any case, even in a matter of months, we would still be talking about romantic love. To my mind, any couple in love before the love that that grows out of building a life together are experiencing romantic love. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:27:47AM -0400, RnTK wrote: : In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field : until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months : because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she : can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) The harvest season isn't three months, even according to RnSP's understanding of the pasuq. And that taqanah derabbanan almost certainly didn't exist yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160619120740.GB24863@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 01:33:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to :> obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH :> said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav : : The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and : other differences between : biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and : milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. At this point our topic is broader than that. We are back one step at whether lo sasur is a derashah or an asmachta. Yes, if every derabbanan is "lo sasur", then we need to ask about safeiq derabbanan lequlah. But if not, what is the source of their authority-- REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" Which then raised the question of whether following chakhamim actually is living according to the design of the world, as REW holds, or :> What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out :> any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all :> to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to : protect deoraisa laws. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. 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 Sun Jun 19 05:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:37:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:21:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> Message-ID: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing before marrying a woman. When people get married, they don't just sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Ben On 6/19/2016 5:17 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth > did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything > more into it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: < What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. > I am not claiming anything metaphysical. It just seems to me that not all rabbinical decrees are to help a deoraisa. I am certainly not baki enough to go through every rabbinical law but certainly some others include eruvin, most importantly almost all berachot, davening (certainly according to those that disagree with Rambam), shevat brachot. As I said before there are loads of decrees in monetary matters that are not just nezikin including prozbul, takanat hashuk, bar metzra. Again I would have to review the 3 Babas to come up with a more detailed list. Even in hilchot shabbat/yomtov we have candle lighting and other aspects of oneg, much of the seder, -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 21:15:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> <576766B2.50408@sero.name> Message-ID: <57676DE5.2000701@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 11:44 PM, I wrote: > On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the >> halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing >> before marrying a woman. > > There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. I just realised my meaning may not have been completely plain. What I meant by this is that they can have a chuppas niddah. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 20:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the > halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing > before marrying a woman. There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. The halacha in question is that when a woman agrees to get married she is presumed to have become a niddah, and must therefore count 7 days like any niddah. (Note that it's not the proposal that triggers this, nor is it her verbal acceptance, but her internal decision to accept it.) The Taz quotes the Maggid Mishneh that this is midrabanan, and says that this explains two problems we would have if it were mid'oraisa. One is Yehuda and Tamar: *not* how they could have sex, but how she could have told him that she was tehora, when by definition she has just become temeiah. The second was Boaz and Ruth: how they could have slept in the same bed. He says this *explicitly* so I don't understand how anyone can possibly misunderstand it. > When people get married, they don't just > sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and > finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Again, you are contradicting the very Taz you are quoting. He says in so many words that the problem we would have with Boaz and Ruth, if this halacha were mid'oraisa, is that she entered his bed. How can you claim that's not his concern, when he says it is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 11:42:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160620184259.GC12092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:37:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" : which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa I think quite the reverse. His saying that we follow the rabbis because not heading their advice would be stupid does not actually make the derabbanan mandatory. And I still think the Ramban is saying that the power of chazal to legislate is from lo sasur, but that does not elevate the product of their legislation to deOraisa. Thus his repeated reference to "zeh halav" in distinction to "'lo sasur' keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah". This makes a strong contrast to R' Mesamyah's position, "sheyeish bikhlal lav de-'lo sasur' kol mah shhu midivrei chakhamim..." One might employ parallel logic to REW's shitah, if it proves necessary. Remember that the Ramban's central problem isn't the same as the one which led us to this discussion. He is defending the idea that "lo sasur" is one of the 613, but (unlike the Behag) the particular mitzvos derabbanan are not each counted among them. Safeiq derabbanan lequlah is tangential to his main point, and more noted than explained. Also, I repeatedly contrasted the Meshekh Chokhmah's position (Devarim 17:11), that mitzvos derabbanan are "pragmatic", meaning the iqar is obedience, as opposed to conforming to Retzon Hashem, which I characterized as having metaphysical effect - or avoiding negtive effects. And since they're about obedience, borderline cases like safeiq derabbanan which are not rebellious can be meiqil, we do not have to worry about spiritual damage. If the mitzvah had inherent value aside from obedience, safeiq derabbanan lequlah would be a license to play Russian Roullete. I realized Retzon Hashem could also be framed less mystically in terms of desired ethics / relationship with Him, whether an asei to foster them or a lav to avoid flaws (a more rationalistic take on spiritual damage that is probably describing the same thing). Values and virtues. And in this formulation, there is no clear line between laws that Chazal would set up to implement a general deOraisa din (eg pirsumei nisa and ner Chanukah) and laws that implement His values. The broader mitzvos get kind of mussar-y / valu-ish. Like ve'asisa hayashar vehatov. On a related topic, 20 agurot from AhS Yomi. YD 201:206 (there are 218 se'ifim in the siman). There is a question whether a miqvah where most of the water is mayim she'uvim is pasul deOraisa or derabannan, or if even a miqvah that is entirely mayim she'uvim is "only" pasul miderabbanan. 3 positions: pasul deOraisa at rov, pasul deOraisa when there is entirely she'uvim, or never pasul deOraisa. The pesul derabbnan starts at 3 log is they were poured in before the 40 se'ah were complete; rov otherwise -- unless rov is deOraisa The Toras Kohanim learns the pesul of mayim she'uvim from "akh ma'yan uvor miqeih mayim" just as a maayan is made by G-d, so must the gathered water of a miqvah. But it is possible that this is an asmachta, or that it's a derashah about using actual tamei keilim but generalizing to she'uvim is asmachta, or... (See se'if 17) Now the relevant bit. In se'if 210, the AhS opines (nir'eh LAD) that because there is an asmachta, we cannot simply say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Thus ruling out the Rambam's idea that asmachtos are just mnemonic and polemic tools; he is saying they actually change the authority of the derabbanan. And if could change whether the iqar is obedience, limiting that possibility only to dinim derabbanan that have no asmachtos. IFF RYME buys into that idea at all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 08:31:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:31:48 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ie the current issue is about one who has specifically violated tora laws related to even haezer related issues. i wonder if crimes against secular governments would fall under the same type of reasoning , which as i understand , is only due to a 'bizayon hatora' . it would seem that any type of crime might fit that bill.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 12:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:45:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: , <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ------------------------------------ "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). 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 Mon Jun 20 13:57:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:57:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=24398 r reuven feinstein [around minute 35 ] responds on this tora umesora Q and A on how the haredi teacher should deal with Hallel on YH. thiswil presumably be more of a bedieved, since lechatchila schools that celebrate YH shouldn't have to rely on teachers that don't on there faculty, and increasingly may not need to.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 15:10:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:10:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> References: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160620221046.GA32539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:45:55PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is : not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). R' Shimon Shkop discusses this gemara near the end of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher. Leshitaso, there is a difference between a rebbe from whom "yevaqeish Torah mipihu" and learning from someone else, who could even be an Acher. But to my mind it is worth knowing and contemplating what our Sages said on Chagiga folio 15b. How could Rabbi Meir receive Torah from the mouth of Acheir [the former Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya, after he became a heretic]. Doesn't Rabba bar bar Chana quote R' Yochanan [in Chagiga as saying] "What does it mean when it says 'For the kohein's lips should keep knowledge; they should see Torah from his lips, for he is the angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts" (Malachi 2:7)? If the rav is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts, seek Torah from his mouth. And if not, do not seek Torah from his mouth." And the Talmud concludes, "There is no question this [Rabbi Meir studying under Acheir] is with someone great, this [the verse] is of someone of smaller stature." It is worth understanding according to this how Rabbi Yochanan spoke without elaboration, since he speaks only of the smaller statured, not the greats. One may say that we should be exacting in that Rabbi Yochanan said, "seek Torah from his mouth" and not "learn from him". For in truth, one who learns from his peer does not learn from the mouth of the person who is teaching him, but listens and weighs on the scales of his mind, and then he understands the concept. This is not learning "from the mouth of" his teacher, but from the mind of the teacher. "Torah from the mouth" is only considered accepting the concepts as he heard them, with no criticism. And it was by this idea that Rabbi Yochanan spoke about accepting Torah from the mouth [i.e. uncritically] only if the rabbi is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts. And according to this, in Rabbi Yochanan's words is hinted a distinction between who is of smaller stature and who is great. The one of smaller stature will learn Torah from the mouth, for he is unable to decide what to draw near and want to keep away. Whereas a person of great stature who has the ability to decide [critically] does not learn Torah from [someone else's] mouth. Similarly, it's appropriate to alert anyone who contemplates the books of acharonim that they should not "learn Torah from their mouths", they shouldn't make a fundamental out of everything said in their words before they explore well those words. Something similar to a reminder of this idea can be learned from what the gemara says in Bava Metzia, chapter "One Who Hires Workers" [85b]. Rabbi Chiya said, "I made it so that the Torah would not be forgotten from Israel." It explains there that he would plant linen, spread out nets [made of tat linen, thereby] hunt deer, made parchment [of their hides], and wrote [on them] chumash texts. This hints that whatever is in our power to prepare from the beginning of the Torah, it is incumbent on us to do ourselves, according to the ability that was inherited to us to explore and understand. And not to rely on the words of the gedolim who preceded us. 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 Tue Jun 21 02:57:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Potential Role of Orthodox Judaism in a "Fractured Republic" Message-ID: <20160621095708.GA20821@aishdas.org> [Rabbi] "Meir Soloveichik on Yuval Levin's 'The Fractured Republic'" or https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/meir-soloveichik-yuval-levins-fractured-republic ... Levin is undoubtedly correct about the state of American religion, both in diagnosis and prescription, and reading his book has made me more convinced that it is at this moment that American Orthodox Judaism may have found a unique calling. As Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik has pointed out, religious Jews have always sought to embody Abraham's identification of himself in the Bible as a ger vetoshav--a stranger and a neighbor, aware of what makes one different while engaging the world and, like Abraham in Canaan, speaking candidly and eloquently about why they are different. Last summer, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who is also a devout Christian, struck by how so many traditionalists feel that they now live in a culture not welcoming to them... As I argued in a recent symposium in Mosaic, the Jewish example can lead faith communities in a joint project to safeguard an America that will allow all of us to be "strangers and neighbors" --to fight for our religious freedom and distinctiveness, while also articulating a conservative vision of the American idea--and thereby illustrating how traditionalists can, in Levin's words, "live out their faiths and their ways in the world." 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 Tue Jun 21 14:13:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:13:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: <20160621211321.GA8586@aishdas.org> RGS posted a link to on Torah Musings: Jewish Action HALACHAH AND THE FALLEN RABBI: Q & A WITH RABBI HERSHEL SCHACHTER JA Mag | June 4, 2015 in Jewish Law By Avrohom Gordimer ... Jewish Action: Can one still follow the piskei halachah of a fallen rabbi? Rabbi Schachter: No. The pasuk in Navi (Malachi 2:7), as expounded by the gemara (Moed Katan 17a), says that a Torah teacher must be sinless and righteous like a malach (angel). According to the Torah, we only follow a rabbi's ruling if he properly models Torah behavior. If he is a ba'al aveirah, if he knowingly violates Biblical or rabbinic laws, he is not qualified to teach and render halachic rulings. When members of the public become aware of his improper behavior, they may no longer rely on his judgment for any rulings, unless it can be verified that such rulings were rendered before the rabbi's sinful conduct began. Since it is often not possible to ascertain when these rulings were rendered, one should ask another rabbi for a new pesak. Although people use [Marcus] Jastrow's [Aramaic] dictionary [for Talmudic and Midrashic terminology], and I was told that Jastrow was not Orthodox, that is different because that is an issue of translation, not pesak (halachic adjudication). For a pesak, a rabbi needs to consider all issues before him, and weigh and evaluate them. It is very different than mere translation. To issue halachic rulings, one must be part of the chachmei haMesorah (Torah scholars who follow the Torah's traditions). A rabbi who sins, especially if he commits a crime, is certainly not in this category. JA: What does one do with the sefarim written by such a rabbi? RS: They should not be used. Since his sefarim include his ideas and rulings, they fit into the prohibition against studying Torah from someone who is unfit due to his improper behavior. Any time someone writes a sefer, he fleshes out and resolves apparently contradictory passages. This is called being machria--providing one's own resolutions in Torah study. The type of person we are discussing is not qualified to be machria and, therefore, his sefarim cannot be used. If it can be verified that the sefarim and the halachic rulings were issued before this person's sinful behavior began, only then can they be relied upon and quoted. JA: Can we/should we continue to cite divrei Torah in his name? RS: We are not allowed to do so. The gemara (Avodah Zarah 35b) says that if a rabbi violates halachah, one cannot say divrei Torah in his name. The statements found in the Talmud in the name of Elisha Ben Abuya were made when he was still committed to Torah observance and belief (see Tosafot, Sotah 12b). If it would appear that the books and articles of the fallen rabbi were written before he began his sinful behavior, they may be used. ... This follows something we've noticed about RHS's position in the past. He holds that pesaq involves the poseiq's full Weltenschaung. To the extent that someone should be looking to posqim from his own camp in particular. >From Kol haMevaser (a school machashav newspaper from YU), 2010, by "Staff" http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-rabbi-hershel-schachter An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter ... Who is qualified to give a pesak Halakhah (halakhic ruling)? What makes his ruling binding upon a large group of people? ... A person has to have a strong tradition in Torah logic. Common sense has its own system of logic and so does Halachah. And to know Talmudic, halachic logic, you have to be learned in all areas of Torah. A posek cannot "specialize" in one area of Halachah alone. In order to be an expert in medical Halachah, you have to know Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohoros, because everything in Halachah is interconnected and interrelated. ... Which characteristics should a person look for when choosing a personal/family posek? Is it appropriate to choose one posek for one area of Halakhah and another for a different area? Is it problematic, halakhically or otherwise, for someone to ask she'eilot to a rabbi other than the leader of his or her shul/kehillah? The Mishnah says "aseh lecha rav" - you have to pick a rav to paskn all of your she'eilos. He has to first and foremost be very knowledgeable.... Second, he has to be humble. The Gemara says that we paskn like the Beis Hillel against the Beis Shammai, because, among other reasons, the Beis Hillel were more humble than the Beis Shammai... He also has to be an honest person. Sometimes you have a rabbi who is a politician and says one thing to one person and another thing to a different person, giving everyone the answer that he wants to hear. That is obviously inappropriate. Finally, he must be a yere Shamayim (God-fearer). The Gemara talks about why the pesakim of talmidei chachamim are binding and says that it is because "sod Hashem li-yere'av" - God gives the secrets of understanding the Torah to those who fear Him. Usually, we assume that the more learned one is, the more yir'as Shamayim he has. If, however, the rabbi of my choice is very learned but seems, unfortunately, to lack yir'as Shamayim, he is not ra'ui (worthy) to receive divine assistance in figuring out what the dinim are. And one off-topic teaser: What does it mean that koah de-hetteira adif (the power of permissibility is greater) and how does one apply that rule? How does this principle accord with concepts like ha-mahamir, tavo alav berakhah (blessing should descend upon the stringent) and yere Shamayim yetse yedei sheneihem (a God-fearer tries to fulfill both)? When, if ever, is it a good idea to take upon oneself a personal humra (stricture)? (REMT already posted the same answer here years ago...) Also, there is , which RET brought to the chevrah's attention in Feb 2014 and RAM transcribed parts of. But then we were talking about that shiur's primary subject -- "Da'as Torah - What are its Halachic Parameters in Non-Halachic Issues?" 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 Wed Jun 22 00:56:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:56:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: <> If I read ir correctly this is from 2008 (not that the halachot have changed). In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. Today with the abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 09:25:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:25:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes. Now that makes sense in a neoplatonic framework, but it needs a new foundation today. This is a particular issue because in Ish HaHalacha RYBS describes these same ideas as a priori categories, and a good Kantian would attribute a priori categories, not to an objective realm, but to the structure of human thought. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 12:54:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:54:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: , <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) Kol tuv Joel rich Sent from my iPad On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: I've been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 22 14:55:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:55:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: I read it. It?s very good, and it?s what prompted me to reread Uvikashtem Misham. It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious justification. The book you cited is RYB?s exposition of the Rambam?s views, but UM is his exposition of his own views. Those are the views that require justification. DR > On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > > You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: > aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan > > This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) > Kol tuv > Joel rich > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: > >> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. >> >> Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? >> >> David Riceman >> _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Jun 22 19:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:24:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <576B485F.8020001@sero.name> On 06/22/2016 05:55 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: > It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use > neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious > justification. Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they make testable claims that can be refuted? If you mean merely that it's no longer fashionable, why should that matter? We Jews have never let fashion dictate our philosophies, and why should we? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 03:29:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:29:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20160623102930.GA24267@aishdas.org> [I also address Zev's question in this post. If yuou are only interested in that, scrol down to the line of """"""...) On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:25:01PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes : from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes... From: http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia , where I complained more of the Rambam's placing knowledge as more central to human redemption than ethic. I also noted indication that RYBS understood the Rambam differently. I simply didn't understand how, given the citations I quoted. In "Text & Texture", the RCA blog, R' Alex Sztuden suggests answers from R' JB Soloveitchik's writings to questions given on R' Soloveitchik's 1936 final exam in Jewish Philosophy. (Thereby showing that these questions were ones R' Soloveitchik considered during much of his life.) The first question, which had two parts: I.a. What is the basic idea of the "Intellectualist Theory" of the religious act? In Halakhic Mind (41-43), the Rav distinguishes between 3 different views of emotional states (and by implication, of religious states): 1. Emotions are non-cognitive. They do not express any facts or statements about the world. In a footnote, the Rav cites Hume as a typical example of this view: "Hume denied the intentional character of our emotional experiences: `A passion is an original existence...and contains not any representative quality which renders it a copy of any other existence or modification. When I am angry, I am actually possessed with the passion, and in that emotion have no more a reference to any other object, than when I am thirsty, or sick or five feet tall...'" (116, footnote 49). 2. Emotions have a cognitive component. In fact, "every intentional act is implicitly a cognitive one...by way of simple illustration, the statement `I love my country' may be broken down into three components: I. There exists a country - predication; II. This object is worthy of my love - valuation; [and] III. I love my country - consummation of the act." (43). According to the Rav, I. ("There exists a country") is a statement of fact that is in effect contained by and in the emotion. Emotions are not irrational outpourings of the heart. They make claims about the world. 3. Emotions are cognitive, but they are confused ideas. This is the Intellectualist Theory of Emotions (and religious states). "Of course, the intellectualistic school, regarding the emotional and volitional activities as modi cogitandi, had to admit some relationship between them and the objective sphere. Owing, however to the contempt that philosophers and psychologists had for the emotional act which they considered an idea confusa..." b. What are the conclusions? Criticism. The intellectualist theory correctly perceived that emotions were cognitive, but incorrectly assumed that they were inferior forms of cognition, confused ideas. For the Rav, all psychic states are intentional, and religious acts therefore contain a cognitive component, subject to elaboration, refinement and critique on its own terms. In RYBS's understanding of the Rambam, the line I am making between perfection of virtue and perfetion of knowledge simply isn't there, or is at best blurry. Which is implied by the use of the word da'as in naming "hilkhos dei'os". And yet in my blog post, I have all that counterevidence. Like the beginning of the Moreh, where he talks about the need for moral and emotional perfection being a consequence of the eitz hada'as, inferior to the prior bechitah based on emes alone, or his ranking of human perfections at the close of the Moreh, his comparing Aristo to prophets, etc... In his interview with R/Dr Alan Brill, it appears that R/Dr Lawrence Kaplan, who produced the book built from RYBS's notes on the Moreh, doesn't see RYBS's take in the Rambam aither. From or https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/rav-soloveitchik-on-the-guide-of-the-perplexed-edited-by-lawrence-kaplan Hermann Cohen's modern reading of Maimonides as ethical and Platonic was instrumental in the 20th century return to Maimonides and especially Soloveitchik's understanding of Maimonides. This lectures in this volume show how Soloveitchik both used and differed with Cohen. ... Kaplan notes that Soloveitchik's readings of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas are "highly controversial" meaning that they are less confrontations with the texts of those thinkers and more the reception and rejection as found in early 20^th century thinkers. His German Professors considered idealism as superseding the classics and Russell considered science and positivism as superseding the ancient. For these works, Maimonides was relegated to the medieval bin. Soloveitchik was going to save the great eagle. ... For Soloveitchik concern for others and responsibility for fellows as hesed is the inclusion of the other in the cosmic vision. Just as God is inclusive of the world and knows the world because it is part of Him, the Talmud scholar knows about people through his universal understanding. Kaplan points out how this is completely the opposite of Jewish thinkers such as Levinas where you actually confront the other and through the face of a real other person gains moral obligation. (I am certain that Soloveitchik pantheistic-Idealist view of ethics will elicit some comments. ) ... 2) Could you elaborate on the claim that Maimonides considers Halakhah as secondary to philosophy? How does R. Soloveitchik counter this approach? This is an old objection to Maimonides. The claim is that Maimonides follows Aristotle in maintaining that knowledge is superior to morality, both moral virtue and moral action, and, furthermore, in arguing that only intellectual knowledge possesses intrinsic value, while morality possesses only instrumental worth, serving only as a steppingstone to attaining intellectual perfection. From this it would follow that Halakhah, dealing with action, is of lesser worth than science, and that Talmud Torah, that is, the study of Halakhah, is inferior to the study of the sciences. The Rav--inaccurately by the way--quotes Graetz as stating that Maimonides in the Guide "sneered at halakhic scholarship." The Rav counters this objection by claiming that Maimonides distinguishes between two stages of ethics: pre-theoretical ethics, ethical action that precedes knowledge of the universe and God, and post-theoretical ethics, ethical action that follows upon knowledge of the universe and God. Pre-theoretical ethics is indeed inferior to theory and purely instrumental; however, post-theoretical ethics is ethics as the imitation of God's divine attributes of action of Hesed (Loving Kindness), Mishpat, (Justice), and Tzedakah (Righteousness), the ethics referred to at the very end of the Guide, and this stage of ethics constitutes the individual's highest perfection. 3) It sounds as if here Soloveitchik is just following Hermann Cohen. The Rav, as he himself admits, takes the basic distinction between pre-theoretical ethics and post- theoretical ethics from Hermann Cohen, but his understanding of the imitation of the divine attributes of action involved in post-theoretical ethics differs from Cohen. Cohen, following Kant's thought, distinguishes sharply between practical and theoretical reason, ethics and the natural order, "is" and "ought." For Cohen, God's attributes of action do not belong to the realm of causality, but to that of purpose; they are not grounded in nature, but simply serve as models for human action. What Cohen keeps apart, the Rav--and here he is, in my view and the view of others, for example, Avi Ravitzky and Dov Schwartz, more faithful to the historical Maimonides--brings together. For the Rav, the main divine attribute of action is Hesed, God's abundant lovingkindness, His "practicing beneficence toward one who has no right" to such beneficence. The prime example of Hesed, for Maimonides, is the creation of the world. This act of creation is both an ethical act, whereby God freely wills the world into existence, and an ontological act, an overflow of divine being, whereby God brings the world into being by thinking it. However, the Rav goes beyond what Maimonides states explicitly by maintaining that the deepest meaning of God's Hesed is that he not only confers existence upon the world, but continuously sustains it by including the existence of reality as whole in His order of existence. 4) Is this the basis of Soloveitchik's claim that Maimonides is a pantheist? I think he means "panentheist". But here we drift from the topic, so I am ending my too-length quote. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:24:31PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited : neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they : make testable claims that can be refuted? The law of conservation of momentum. Aristo's entire metaphysics is tied to his notion in physics that objects move when they are given impetus, and continue moving until the impetus runs out. Imetus is imparted by intellects. Intellect is what brings something min hakoach el hapo'al. Thus the Rambam's belief that the spheres -- the spinning transparent shells of quintessence in which the heavenly objects are embedded -- were intellects. Because otherwise, they would have had to stop spinning by now. And his identification of mal'akhim with Aristotle's chain of intellects, making them the metaphysical forces behind natural events and the metaphysics by which Hashem's decisions reach the world. But now we replaced the spheres with orbits, mathematical non-entities, the product of momentum and the gravity of the bodied involved. So yes, because Philosophy included Natural Philosophy, and mataphysics wend hand-in-hand with Physics to create a single picture of how the world works, Aristotilian neo-Platonism like the Rambam's philosophy did make testable claims. And those were falsified. 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 Jun 23 03:33:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: Chazon Ish Emunah & Bitochon perek 3 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Gershon via Avodah wrote: > I believe it's a Chazon Ish. > On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah < > avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > > thought of on our own. > > > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: > ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 04:45:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:45:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How would you analyze the amount of "bother" you should go to in Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? 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 Thu Jun 23 08:17:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:17:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <576BFD98.9040206@sero.name> On 06/23/2016 07:45 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in > Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to > get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the > benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether > the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 12:19:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:19:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning Message-ID: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the bracha before Krias Shema. The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved only through learning Torah. Without limud haTorah, any feelings of longing that a person may have for the Jewish way of life as practiced in the old kehillos of the towns and villages of Europe do not represent the love or fear of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Rather, they are mostly nostalgic sentiments, somewhat like that which is expressed by the song "Mein Shtetele Belz. " They have no real connection with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Such a connection can be achieved only through limud ha Torah. One cannot fear or love something that is only an idea. By learning Torah, we recognize the reality of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and, consequently, can achieve both ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem. Love and fear are really contradicting relationships. One either fears another, or loves him. Love draws one to something, and fear repels one from it. We therefore ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this tefillah that in our relationship to Him, He allow us to have both sentiments, that of our love for Him, together with our fear of violating His will. This is the meaning of v'ychad levavainu? To "fear" HaKadosh Baruch Hu does not mean that one must constantly tremble before Him. Rather, it means that one is to be afraid to violate His will. This is similar to the fear a driver has of going through a red light, which does not mean that he sits in his car and trembles. On the contrary, he can be very relaxed, while at the same time being acutely aware of the danger to his life should he go through that red light. This "fear" actually makes driving very safe. Similarly, we ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu to unify our hearts, l'yachad. to love Him, while at the same time, to make us afraid of transgressing His will. YL __________________________ BTW, I highly recommend the sefer Rav Schwab on Prayer. It gives many insights into our davening that I was most certainly not aware of. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 13:56:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:56:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning In-Reply-To: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> References: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20160623205631.GA15414@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:19:51PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments : on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the : bracha before Krias Shema. : The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved : only through learning Torah... Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The first Tablets were made by G-d, like the body of writing as explained in the Torah. The latter Tablets were made by man [Moses], as it says "Carve for yourself two stone tablets." (Exodus 34:1) Tablets are things which cause standing and existence, that it's not "letters fluttering in the air." Since they were made by Hashem, they would stand eternally. But the second ones, which were man-made, only exist subject to conditions and constraints. The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was a symbol and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the Torah [since]. Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone Tablets", so too it is advice for all who receive the Torah. Each must prepare Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word of Hashem. According to his readiness in preparing the Tablets, so will be his ability to receive. If in the beginning or even any time after that his Tablets are ruined, then his Torah will not remain. This removes much of Moses' fear, because according to the value and greatness of the person in Awe/Fear of Hashem and in middos, which are the Tablet of his heart, this will be the measure by which heaven will give him acquisition of Torah. And if he falls from his level, by that amount he will forget his Torah, just as our sages said of a number of things that cause Torah to be forgotten. About this great concept our sages told us to explain the text at the conclusion of the Torah, "and all the great Awe Inspiring acts which Moses wrought before the eyes of all of Israel." (Devarim 34:12, the closing words of the Torah) This is in a long Litvisher tradition that yir'as Shamayim is a precondition t being able to learn. Not, as Rav Schwap is quoted here, a consequence. Although a positive feedback cycle is certainly a possibility. For example, from Nefesh haChaim 4:5: According to the vast arrangement of the silo of yir'ah that the person prepared for himself, it is through that arrangement that the grain of Torah will be able to enter and be protected within him, according to how much he strengthened his silo. It is [like] a father who divides grain for his sons. He divides and gives each one a measure of grain to match what the son's silo can hold, which he [the son] prepared beforehand. For even if the father wishes and his hand is open to give him more, the son cannot receive more since his silo is not big enough to hold more. So too the father cannot now give him more. And if the son did not prepare even a small silo, then also the father can not give him anything at all for he has no guarded place where it will remain with him. So too Hashem, may His name be blessed: His "Hand" is open, as it were, to constantly bestow every person according to his reward with much wisdom and extra understanding when it will be preserved by them and will be tied onto the slate of their hearts. Everything [is given] according to the volume of one's "silo." And if a person does not prepare even a small silo, which is that he does not, heaven forbid, have within him any yir'ah whatsoever for Him, may He be blessed, so too He, may He be blessed, will not bestow any wisdom at all, since it will not be preserved by him. For his Torah would become disgusting, heaven forbid, as our Rabbis, whose memories are a blessing, said. It is about this that the verse says, "the beginning of wisdom is yir'as Hashem," (Tehillim 111). This relates directly to another post of yours of quotes from RSoP. "Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah", thread at http://j.mp/28Q172y (or http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=R#RAV%20SHIMON%20SCHWAB%20ON%20WOMEN%20LEARNING%20TORAH ) In Feb you wrote: > The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. ... > A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim > because of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is > not the object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher > or scientist, but Torah is not philosophy or science. Torah is the way > Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us. > Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man, > can it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his yiras > Shamayim. Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud Torah, she > cannot utilize it as a means to increase her many ways of connection > to Hashem. And at some point I wrote: > I realize I do not have clarity on what RSS is referring to when he says > "yir'as Shamayim". > To the Ramchal is means by default yir'as hacheit, which in turn means > fear of doing the wrong thing because it's against His Will. (In contrast > to yir'as ha'onesh, fear of the sin's punishment, which is not real > yir'as Shamayim.) According to the Ramchal, also included in yir'ah is > yir'as haromemus. But those are all feelings. How could we make a blanket > statement ike "women do not learn to fear sinning or how awe-inspiring > G-d is by learning Torah"? (Whereas men can, or in True Scotsman style: > If a man didn't gain yir'as Shamayim, it wasn't *really* learning.) > So it seems to me RSS is speaking about something more specific. Perhaps > a relationship with ol mitzvos, which is why it is only generated by > a metzuvah ve'oseh performance. But even that would be iffy, because a > person can learn an emotional stance by imagining what it would be like > if... So that by learning, if the woman could empathetically imagine > what it would be like to be a man and compelled to learn as a mitzvah > in itself, wouldn't she still learn the yir'ah behind ol mitzvos? Now, that theory too has to be scrubbed. It looks like RSS is speakiong very speicifcally about fulfilling an obligation of talmud Torah. It's not a function of obligation in general (pg 300) nor of talmd Torah without the chiyuv (pg 274). So I REALLY have no clarity. 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 Fri Jun 24 02:14:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36431880-c73a-a5c8-e53d-25218ec972ef@zahav.net.il> There is also an ideological element to the reduced numbers. Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook strongly pressured the DL schools to not hire chareidi teachers (for obvious reasons). Ben On 6/22/2016 9:56 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. > Today with the > abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a > DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:17:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in Monsey. Ben On 6/23/2016 1:45 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in Eretz > Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get > birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit > of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah > is on the cohanim alone? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:01:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birkhat cohanim Message-ID: <> Certainly not a mitzvah in the formal sense of the word. However Rav Melamed explains that the chazzan (or someone in the congregation) calls out "cohanim" to signify that we wish to accept the blessing and only then can the cohanim begin see http://ph.yhb.org.il/02-20-07/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 05:20:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:20:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. > Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in > Monsey. > Ben The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. [Email #2. -micha] >> On 06/23/2016 07:45 Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? > Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > Zev The Haflaah among others. Listen here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/858947 Rabbi Ezra Schwartz-Duchening for non kohanim Kol tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 06:46:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576D399C.3070707@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 05:17 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. But only those who are in front of them, not those behind them. So I suppose any kohen, on any day, is only blessing half of Am Yisrael. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:12:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6deabf95-1f8d-0240-e958-c2518f9d8be0@zahav.net.il> On 6/24/2016 2:20 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one > stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. Because the people behind the cohenim are able to walk a couple of feet and choose not to whereas anyone else is considered anoos and therefore they are included in the bracha. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:17:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:17:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: >> How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in >> Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to >> get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the >> benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? >Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the kohanim. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:12:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 01:17 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >>Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > > The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer > Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the > kohanim. Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:10:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:10:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160624181048.GA19921@aishdas.org> In AhS yomi today, YD 240:34, RYME discusses the issur of listening to a parent who tells you to violate the din. One cannot discuss achei dokheh lav because the pasuq excludes such commands from a parent's authority. He ends: And memela, also in an issur derabbanan it is against the Torah. For HQBH commanded not to veer from anything the chakhamim say. So, those who say lo sasur is only an asmakhta for obeying a mitzvah derabbanan, do they say kibud av does include an order to violate a lave derabbanan? Or do they have a different sevara? :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:15:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160624181511.GB19921@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:54:09PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The : Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai : that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva See also AhS se'if 39, who says the same, but in more detail. The Lekhem Mishnah lmits the Machloqes to while the father is alive, saying that even the Rambam does not require KaVA of an evil parent fter their petirah. The Kesef Limits it to mishel ha'av, the son of an evil parent is not chayav lehachzir lo mishelo. And he believes Rashi explains the gemara in a manner consistent with the Tur's position. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:18:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev for a berakhah? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:22:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:22:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? > : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say > : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. > > Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev > for a berakhah? Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for women according to the BeHaG? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 01:54:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:54:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: R' Zev Sero asked: "Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed?" The Biur Halacha at the beginning of Siman 128 quotes from the Sefer Charedim that there is a mitzva on the tzibur to be blessed by the kohanim. The Haflaah in Kesubos 24b uses this Charedim to explain why it is prohibited for a non-Kohen to go up to duchen, He says that if a Yisrael goes up to duchess he is being mevatel his mitzva of receiving the beracha. See also the Minchas Chinuch 378 who quotes this Charedim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 25 11:05:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:05:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > explanation of the Rambam. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not > the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a > safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important . R. Avraham pointed out that problem of the authority of the rabbis is a basic problem and not just a difficulty with a Rambam and Ramban. The better the source of their authority the more it looks like a de-oraisa. The more one goes away from a de-oraisa the weaker their authority. His major answer is that every time there is a dichotomy the only way out is to find a third middle path. In general this replaces a binary decision by a continuum path. His standard example is the definition of bald. Someone who has one hair is obviously bald. It is also obvious that adding one hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. The conclusion by induction is that every one is bald. The answer to the riddle that the dichotomy of bald not-bald is not correct. Adding one more hair makes someone less bald. It is a continuum and not a binary. R Avraham (RMA) brought the Nesivos that also (or more correctly first) states that there are two types of violating a derabbanan. One is to rebel against the concept of derabbanan and that is lo tasur according to the Rambam (he also hinted that in the next shiur the Ramban will agree with the Rambam). OTOH if one violates the rabbanan rule "le-teavon" then it is a strictly rabbinical rule. Hence, Nesivot concludes that if one one violates a rabbanan "be-shogeg" one does not need kaparah. In essence he has done nothing wrong. The lo-tasur is only for rebellion and he has not rebelled. Note that practically there can't be rebellion and safek. In modern terms the netivot says that all rabbanan decrees are gavra and not cheftza. Eating meat and milk (cooked together) the mixture is prohibited. Eating chicken and milk cooked together there is nothing wrong with the mixture. It is rebelling against the chachamim to eat it on purpose (lo tasur) or rabbinic if eaten le-teavon. RMA pointed out that this again comes back to the problem of why to listen to the rabbis Note that the Rogachover holds that every mitzvat aseh is only gavra and not cheftza A second explanation was from the Rogatchover: The prohibition from the Torah only demands that we accept the authority of the rabbis. If someone accepts that the rabbis can make decrees but decides that nevertheless he can't/won't listen then there is no Torah prohibition. This leaves open the question how is it possible that one can accept the authority of the rabbis but still disagree with them. It seems to bring back the original question of what good is their authority if one need not listen, To explain this RMA brought a Tzlach. The Nodah BeYehuda states that sevara yields a de-oraisa only if their is a connecting pasuk. Thus killing someone to save oneself is a deoraisa based on sevara (everyones blood is equal). However when sevara creates a new category then it is only derabbanan. The classic example is berachot - eating without a bracha is LIKE stealing. So the rabbis based on this sevara required berachot. However, it is only a derabbanan since one is not actually stealing. (answers a question of the Pnei Yehoshua). Similarly for something to be a Torah law there has to be both a commandment and a content. In order for something to be a de-oraisa it needs BOTH a source and content. So violating shabbat is one prohibition even though there are many pesukim since the content is the same. OTOH "lav she-be-chlalot" has only one pasuk but many contents and so also there is no punishment. According to Rambam anything no explicit in the Torah has no punishment when learned from derashot. So the prohibition of "Lo Tasur" gives a generalization that there is a commandment to listen to the rabbis. The rabbis applied to this to various cases but this is no longer explicit in the pasuk and so no longer a de-oraisa. This is different than "lifne iver" where giving bad advice is an example of the pasuk and so from the Torah. In summary there are 3 types of derashot 1) examples not explicit in the pasuk - clasical example is neder. The Torah says one can't violate one's neder. Hoever the individual person decides the specific application 2) Asmachta (some meforshim) - just a help to memory. Ritva argues that some asmachtot are really the intention of the pasuk. However since it is only hinted it is a rabbanan and not a deoraisa i.e. there is content but no commandment. 3) Things learned indirectly from the pasuk there is a sevara (content) but no commandment. Finally RMA argues that finding a third/middle path is the only way out and so Ramban has to agree with Rambam. The arguments are more misunderstandings and semantics. Another example is Avelut. Rambam states explicitly that ivisiting the avel or making the kallah happy rabbinic. He the quotes the pasuk of "ve-ahavta le-reacha komecha" . This eems to be self-contradictory. The answer is the same as for "Lo Tasur". There is content but no explicit commandment and so it is rabbinic even though hinted in the pasuk. Someone who "loves" (not romantic) the Kallah but doesnt make her happy fulfills the Torah obligation but not the rabbinic one. Someone who makes her happy but doent "love" her fulfils the rabbinic command but not the Torah obligation. RMA then hinted to a wider application to general philosophical questions where one has observations and generalizations. How is it possible to generate a physical law (eg Maxwell's equations) when all we have are a finite number of observations. In other words are mathematical descriptions of nature inherent in nature or man-made. De-raisa is like observations we only have what is explicit. Derabbanan are generalizations. In both cases we need to find a middle/continuum path Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 08:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev >> for a berakhah? > Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? > In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for > women according to the BeHaG? In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: <576FFEA2.1070206@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 11:51 AM, elazar teitz wrote: > In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf > person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of > noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer > Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the > blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. Good distinction. Even awareness is presumably not necessary, since we bring babies to be blessed. But is this distinction really relevant to the question of whether to make a bracha? Where do we see that a bracha depends on a chiyuv to hear rather than merely to be present? Further question: is a bracha said on attending hakhel? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:13:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:13:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: <<< According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? >>> As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the latter than the former. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:34:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and then continues on the cruise. We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many days -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:32:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:32:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57709038.8010307@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:34 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for > someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every > day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a > difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and > then continues on the cruise. > > We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips > on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of > the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many > days How much more so. If one says it (without shem umalchus) every morning of the journey, even at a hotel where one might be staying for a day or two to rest, how much more so must one say it (again without shem umalchus) every morning if one is actually travelling at that very moment. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:30:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:30:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57708FB9.2050601@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:13 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be > blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: >> According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? > As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one > does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. > Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the > recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. > How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the > kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Our case is different, because once the cohen has answered the call and gone up to the duchan he can't change his mind. He's now obligated to bless. And if he hasn't done it yet that day then he has to do it anyway. > Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha > only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel > and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely > being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is > indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the > latter than the former. But we *do* have an obligation to say a bracha, which we are yotzei by listening to the baal tokeia's or baal korei's; if he has already been yotzei himself then he does *not* say the bracha again, and one of the listeners says it for everyone. Here, however, we are not yotzei with the cohanim's bracha, since it doesn't apply to us; we are not sanctified with Aharon's kedusha, and we were not commanded to bless but (according to this opinion) to be blessed. So if we're not yotzei their bracha why don't we say our own (or have the chazan say it for us)? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 02:10:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:10:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: In my original post I was too short. Therefore I will expand a little about tefillat haderech and my question 1) Rashi holds that tefillat haderech (THD) is requesting permission from Hashem and so can only be said within the first parsah. Bahag holds that THD is asking for protection and so can be said anytime up to a parsah before the end of the trip. Rosh and SA pasken like Behag. Rambam doesn't mention THD and meforshim try and explain why 2) Ashkenazim measure parsah as a distance (about 4km) even when using a car or plane. ROY translated parsah to a time of 72 minutes. 3) Kolbo says that one says THD only once a day even if one made a stop during the day (quoted in SA). Hence, MB says that if one is touring and stops every night in a hotel one says THD every morning with a bracha. Yalkut Yosef says that if one travels 40 minutes going to work and 40 minutes back they don't combine and one says THS without a bracha 4) Radvaz talks about an extended trip and says that even if one is not stopping in a "yishuv" and if if one is travelling all night he says THD every day but a bracha only on the first day. Pri Chadash disagrees says that one says THD only on the first day even if it is an extended trip MB says that if one makes a short stop then one should say THD the next morning without a bracha 5) As an aside RSZA paskens that one does not say THD traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as there are cities all along the way. Yalkut Yosef disagrees. RSZA also says that on a plane one should say THD shortly after the plane leaves the ground My question concerned travelling on a boat either several day journey without stops across the Atlantic or else a cruise with many stops in ports. According to the Pri Chadash one certainly doesn't say THD after the first day. However, even according to the Radvaz one might argue that there is no need to say THD after the first day since one always stays on the boat day and night and it is different than a caravan. Of course one can always say THD without a bracha but the question is whether one needs to. I have no surveys but in my limited experience people do not say THD every day on a cruise even without a bracha -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 06:17:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei halachot in monetary matters Message-ID: A new web site exists collecting piskei halachot in financial matters especially from eretz chemda courts in Israel currently 336 rulings with a search engine psakim.org -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 07:39:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:39:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Buying Sliced Watermelon Message-ID: <1467038393622.33144@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. I am preparing a picnic. Can I buy sliced watermelon from the supermarket? A. The Shach (YD 96:3) cites a concern that a knife often contains a fatty residue even after it has been washed or wiped with a rag. Therefore, if a non-kosher knife was used to cut kosher food, some of the residue on the knife would transfer to the food. Rama (96:1, 4) writes that with regards to fruit, we can assume that the manufacturer or processor has dedicated utensils. Even if the knife is not dedicated to cutting fruit, however, if large quantities of fruit are being cut or sliced, we can assume that whatever non-kosher residue was on the knife was removed when cutting the first few fruit, which are batel (nullified) in the majority of other fruit. One may, therefore, purchase cut watermelon in a supermarket or in a fruit store. The market would likely have dedicated utensils and in any event it is preparing large quantities of fruit. In a non-kosher restaurant or catered event, however, the fruit would not be permitted because the knives very likely are not dedicated and food preparation switches from one product to the next. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 13:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:55:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim Message-ID: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R' Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in "Ve ha-ish Moshe Anav m'od" from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Thanks, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 19:28:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim In-Reply-To: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> References: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> Message-ID: <5771E0DF.8050101@sero.name> On 06/27/2016 04:55 PM, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R? > Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. > > In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in ?Ve > ha-ish Moshe Anav m?od? from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Here you go: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19165&pgnum=207 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 28 03:03:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:03:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is dirt clean? Message-ID: If a Jew wants to eat bread, halacha requires a certain form of hand-washing, but that has nothing to do with this thread. There are also certain situations where halacha recognizes a certain *spiritual* uncleanliness, and requires a certain hand-washing to remedy it. Most (all?) of these situations are listed in S"A O"C 4:18, and include things like getting up from bed, exiting a bathroom, removing one's shoes, and others. It is noteworthy that this se'if begins with the words "These things require washing with water", as if to suggest that washing with other things would not be effective. Indeed, the Mishne Brurah #39 comments on the word "with water": > However, for tefilah - and certainly for learning Torah - > a mere cleaning is enough for any of these cases, as > noted below in se'if 22, in the case of one who gets up > from bed. And this is certainly [acceptable] if there is > no [water available]. However, removing the Ruach Raah > requires specifically water. ... But this thread isn't about those situations either. I am mentioning it only in order to clearly establish that there is yet another category of situations, namely the ones that the MB pointed to as being in Se'if 22. The Mechaber wrote there (S"A O"C 4:22): > If one has no water, he should wipe his hands on a > pebble or dirt or anything that cleans, and say the > bracha 'Al Nekiyus Yadayim'. This [procedure] is > effective for tefilah, but not to remove the ruach > raah which is on [the hands]. The Mechaber's phrase "anything that cleans", and his wording for the bracha in such cases, not to mention his comment about ruach raah at the end -- All these things make it abundantly clear that we are talking about *physical* cleanliness, as opposed to other kinds of cleanliness. And the Mechaber writes similarly in O"C 92:4, that prior to Tefilah, > One must wash his hands with water if he has some, and > if he doesn't have any [the Mechaber explains how far > one must go to obtain water]. But if he is worried that > he will pass the time limit for Tefilah, then he should > clean his hands with a pebble or dirt or anything that > cleans. My question is simple: Why is dirt in the category of "things which clean"? It seems to me that if I would rub my hands with dirt they would (almost always) be even dirtier afterwards than before. The only answer I can think of is that halacha considers dirt to be clean. Is it possible that the *only* uncleanliness that prohibits tefila are the things listed in OC 4:21 - touching covered parts of one's body, etc. (and perhaps other specific listings elsewhere) Here's a practical situation. Suppose someone is at work, and it is close to Mincha time. So he goes to the bathroom, exits, and does the best washing you can imagine, with whatever chumros you like. Then he realizes he has a bit more time until mincha, so he decides to go back to work, but with constant attention to being very careful not to scratch his head, or touch under his shirt, or any of the things that would require him to wash again before mincha. But his job is a butcher, and he will get his hands bloody. Or he is a painter or printer, and he'll get paint or ink on his hands. Or he is a farmer or construction worker, and he'll get actual earth on his hands. And now it is time for mincha. Are his hands halachically clean or dirty? If you tell me that they are dirty, how does it help to wipe his hands in the dirt? I have more questions on this topic, but I hope this will get the ball rolling. Thank you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:32:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rishon vs Acharon and other kelalei pesak Message-ID: <20160629193257.GA12798@aishdas.org> There are some interesting se'ifim toward the end of AhS YD 242 that touch on a number of our perennial topics. Se'ifin 58-62 discuss the din of whether a rav can pasqen on something that someone else already pasqened on, and if so, is a sho'el allowed to ask the second rav the self-same question. In 59 he opines (nir'eh LAD) that the Raavad, Ramban, Rashba, Rosh and Ran (AZ 7) all say the issue is not the kavod of the first talmid chakham, but because once he prohibits, chal alei chatichah de'isura [CACD]. Therefore, if the first TC made an error in a zil qeri bei rav matter, it's like someone who avoids a piece of shuman thinking it's cheilev, and there is no CACD. However, ther 2nd TC *may* say "I think it's allowed, but I will not permit something R' XYZ already prohibited." If a talmid chakham was matir and no one acted on it, another TC can be machmir. But if it was acted upon, he can't. I do not see an explanation why. Later we learn that a TC of an obviously higher caliber, or a moreh de'asra in his own town, can indeed overrule an earlier TC's ruling. Another interesting topic is 35 -- if acharonim disagree with a rishon whose opinion was available in their day, we follow the acharonim. If the rishon was not (eg Me'iri), we say that perhaps the acharonim would have ruledd differently had they seen it. But you cznnot rule against a ga'on. Yeish omerim you never hold like acharonim against rishonim, but yesh lehisyasheiv bazeh. However, if the rishon find one position compelling (yakhol lehachira) he may pasqen as he sees (except against geonim). 36: Just as it is assur to permit the prohibited, so too it is assur to prohibit the permitted. Even if there is no hefseid, or the item is owned by a non-Jew. However, safeiq and being chosheish for the opinoin of many rishonim is sufficient motive . According to the Shakh this is because "shelo ya'asu agudos agudos." In general the AhS refers to the Shakh's qunetrus on kelalei hapesaq a lot. Even though on a couple of things he holds like the Rama over the Shakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:46:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yanik Message-ID: <20160629194624.GA12037@aishdas.org> AhS YD 244 is about vehadarta penei zaqein -- both someone chronologically old (as long as he is not a rasha or an am ha'aretz who therefore ends up non-observant by ignorance), and a talmid chakham. In se'if 3 he says that a zaqein for the sake of this mitzvah would even include a TC who is a yaniq. Not a qatan. So what's a yaniq? Someone 17 or younger. Are there any mitzvos for which 17 yrs old is a significant age? The ony reference I could dream up is R' Elazar ben Azaria, who was 17, was supposed to be getting kavod (being nasi), and turned gray (keben shiv'im shanah) overnight. Problem is, he was 18 according to the Bavli; it's the Yerushalmi who has him becoming nasi at 16, and saying this quote at 17. And of cvourse the bigger problem is that there is no reason to turn the age REbA happened to be into a cutoff line. Can anyone think of something? 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 Thu Jun 30 02:10:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:10:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] meanings Message-ID: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or should you pick one? 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 Thu Jun 30 03:51:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:51:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma > before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities > with different meanings. (By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or > should you pick one? Another example in Hallel: ze hayom `asa Hashem, nagila venismha bo (is "bo" hayom or Hashem? Most translations seem to go for "hayom", but "veyyismehu becha Yisrael" in the kedushat hayom of 18 for regalim fits with "bo" meaning Hashem) My humble opinion: for pesukim, if there are two possibilities it's not by chance, and mikra lo yotze mipeshuto -- including all its peshatim. For tefilla, I'm not so sure, but I think you should probably pick one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:13:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:10:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma : before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities : with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off : or should you pick one? As per my answer to you at this week's wonderful Audio Roundup , I believe you *should* switch off. Poets make a point of layering on multiple meanings when they wish to convey a picture using al of them. I believe the point of ambiguity in tefillah is just so that you can emphasize different shades of meaning depending on what you want to way this particular time. (I accept tips for plugging a member's web site via Paypal. Contact me off-list. No, seriously, the biggest problem with RJR's Audio Roundup over on TM is that he tempts you with too many good shiurim for just one week of listening time.) There is a basic grammatical problem, two nouns, both the object of the sentence, with nothing indicating which is the primary object, which the secondary, nor anything connecting them into a single phrase that could be one object. Thanks to previous Avodah discussions, I have a list of ways to read "umasbia lekhol chai ratzon": - Pashut peshat [check your typical siddur translation] would be as though the pasuq read "umasbia' ritzon kol chai" -- leaving every desire satisfied. (Or maybe "umasbia lekhol chai es tetzono".) RYGB disliked this peshat because it's experimentally false. Many people die with unfulfilled desires. - Rav Schwab says that everyone is dependent on "yennem's" liking him for his parnassa.... Hashem provides this needed "ratzon". (RGD) RMPoppers suggests [on Mesorah] that "ratzon" was the very quality that HQBH is bequeathing, IIRC, something akin to granting "chein". - [T]he Malbim's pshat - Ratzon Hashem. (RYGB) [W]ould would work better if the pasuq read "... umasbia' lechol chei beratzon" .(me) - RAYK points out that without ratzon, goals and purposes for a person to persue, life is empty. So he too says that Hashem bestows ratzon -- but means it in the sense of having desire, not being desired/desirable. Hashem does us a tovah by giving us retzonos to pursue. Someone else noted the parallel in pereq 104:27-28 as an argument for what I called "pashut peshat": > Kulam alecha yesaberun / Eynai kol alecha yesabeiru > Lases ochlam b'ito / V'atah nosein lahem achlam b'ito > Titein lahem yilkotun. > Tiftach yadcha / Poseach es yadech > yisbe'un tov. / U'masbiya l'kol chay ratzon. > The whole string of preceding psukim in 104 refer to G-d's ability to > sustain the world in a very real and material way, not abstractions like > bestowing "razton". But I think that David haMelekh created the obscure phrasing because the real answer is "(E) All of the above". I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel beratzon..." works. When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase vehasheiv: - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, - ve'ishei Yisrael. Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to restore the BHMQ bfirst? Or do we pun on "ishei Yisrael" pretending it means "anshei Yisrael" but in a unique conjugation? But the question is how to find meaning in a pre-existing text under a new circumstance. Not multiuple layers of original intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:44:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:44:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9CWhenever_you_find_yourself_on_the_sid?= =?utf-8?q?e_of_the_majority=2C_it_is_time_to_reform_=28or_pause_and_refle?= =?utf-8?b?Y3QpLuKAnSAg4oCVIE1hcmsgVHdhaW4=?= Message-ID: We all know the minority report by Joshua and Caleb showers its praises on the land and counsels b?nai Yisroel to go up to it. The ten other ?spies? give a very negative report against the land and can see only giants, fortified cities and difficulties they feel are insurmountable. These ten men of small stature conclude their report with the following: ?And there we saw the giants (nephilim), the sons of the giant (Anak), from among the giants; And we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes and so we were in their sight. (Bamidbar 13:33). The Midrash states that at these words, God said: ?I have no objection to your saying, ?We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes,? but it is inappropriate if you say, ?and so were were in their sight.? How do you know how you appeared to them? How do you know if you did not appear to them to be angels?? (Midrash Bamidar Rabbah, XVL, II). This is a profound psychological insight. How many times we feel insignificant and think everyone else looks at us the same. Just because you feel inferior doesn?t mean you are. That?s the meaning of ?You?re your own worst enemy." Shabbat shalom. ri From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 12:50:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <577577ED.2090001@sero.name> On 06/30/2016 02:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. > Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to > say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) > > In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel > beratzon..." works. > > When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in > a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the > period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase > vehasheiv: > - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, > - ve'ishei Yisrael. > Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept > the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to > restore the BHMQ bfirst? I don't see the problem, or the "repurposing". The phrase means exactly what it always meant. The only change the bracha needed to adapt it to the new reality was the addition of a new request, to restore the avodah, before the request to accept our korbanos and tefillos. Once the new request is fulfilled, the next one won't be a problem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 06:57:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 09:57:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Navigating Kitchen Appliance Technology Message-ID: <20160401135835.593F217FAB8@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 07:39:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> Message-ID: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. -- 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 Fri Apr 1 10:44:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:44:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401174415.GA2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:28:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I think the real difference between the two cases is how deeply one must : dig to see the wires and the switches: In the floor mat all you'd need, I : guess, is to cut through a centimeter or two of rubber to see the wires, : while the motion detector would need a microscope and an engineering degree : just to understand what you're looking at. But even with the mat, no one : can actually see the electricity move simply as a result of standing on it. I think those two are different in kind. In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Let's say there was an unlit room at the end of a long hall, so there was no way to light it without chilul Shabbos. Would it be mutar to write in such a room? Or is writing assur, regardless of the situation? If a bug is born of eggs that are large enough to be visible, but happen to be hidden within uncut meat, is the maggot kosher? In the motion detector (or the fitbit), the change is not detectible by an unaided human, regardless of the situation. People cannot see the microscopic. (And yes, I realize that claim is true by definition of the word "microscopic"). The change is outside the realm of unaided human senses in principle, not in situation. If one looks through water through a microscope and finds water bears and other micrscopic bugs in it, does that water become treif? Is all tap water or distilled water in bottles that were open too long treif because one in theory would find such things in most water? (For a moment there I thought about mayim she-lanu, but then realized this would be a much more restrictive issur than that.) : There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, : but in my experience this idea is very new. Not even ten years old perhaps. Rav Dovid Lifshitz spoke about halakhah in general ignoring the microscopic some time between Sep 1984 and Jun 1986. The permissability of killing bugs that have no piryah verivyah on Shabbos (or of eating them) is miSinai. Or at least, as old as some pre-Chazal rav pasqened the deOraisa that way, since Chazal take it for granted. The real motive for saying halakhah only applies to the sensible is to find a new explanation for an old heter to avoid saying a din deOraisa is in error, even though the old explanation (abiogensis of these insects) was shown to be empirically false. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 10:57:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> References: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160401175728.GC2751@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 02:06:19AM -0400, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote: : And here's the link to the source sheet: : http://cdn.yutorah.org/materials/Source Sheet-510279.pdf RMT's discussion is of ex rays, and really focuses on whether the developing is koseiv. (Also, mesayeia, how often is it really needed, etc...) If anything, I would read him as assuming that the invisiable change to the film is mutar. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 11:18:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:18:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401181840.GD2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:01PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : Seems similar to an automatic watch, except for there being post-Shabbos : utility to the recorded unintentional-exercise-on-Shabbos data. Also, the automatic watch, becoause it is never allowed to run down, is never actually broken to need repairs. What melakhah would be involved, even if the winding were observable? (And I think in principle it is... one can see the spring and how tight it is.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 15:54:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:54:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: I wrote: > ... But even with the mat, no one can actually see the electricity > move simply as a result of standing on it. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think those two are different in kind. > > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible hypothetically, albeit not situationally? If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I missing something here? Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." I will concede that he clearly has some wiggle room there, and he doesn't specify why he is unsure, but I never thought that the invisibility of the electrons was an issue, since their power is so evident. Could it be that the tide has turned, and more poskim are looking at the electrons? I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 2 21:33:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, but in my experience this idea is very new. .... Let's say that there is a posek who rules leniently on these devices, and he bases his ruling on this principle that tiny things can be ignored. What precedent is there? What lenient rulings existed 25 or 50 years ago, based on that same principle? Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice and didn't mean to kill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:34:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: This is many ways similar to the use of electronic water meters on shabbos. The meter has no external display that changes and all it does on Shabbos is record how much water you are using. The Charedi poskim in israel have all assumed that it is absolutely forbidden. You can see the kol korehs here: http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2012/09/using-electronic-water-meters-on-shabbos.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:41:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I realise that I was a bit terse in my original question so I would like to expand on the halachic questions. After talking to 2 expert sofrim the story is as follows. There are 2 halachic problems with black on white (traditional retzuos): 1. Since the black is just painted on, the paint peels off leaving a part (even small) of the retzua that is not black. The MB is machmir that this will pasul the retzua 2. The KSA has a chumra that the sides of the retzuos should be black as well. The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the above 2 issues. 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't peel off or crack, it stays black 2. The sides are black as well. The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the gedolim today use black on black retzuos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 07:38:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 10:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57012B00.10604@sero.name> Another advantage of black-on-black: Al pi din only the loop that holds the bayis to your arm or head has to be top-side-out. The rest of the retzuah that goes around your arm or that hangs down past the kesher can face any way. But if you have the white showing, inevitably someone will come up to you tell you to turn it around or just turn it around themselves. With black-on-black this won't happen. -- 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 Sun Apr 3 13:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 22:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> References: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> Message-ID: <57017B0A.4040206@zahav.net.il> This could be different because even if you walk on grass there is no guarantee that you're going to kill anything. Whereas in today's digital world, you walk in various cities, you're going to activate some circuits somewhere. Ben On 4/3/2016 6:33 AM, via Avodah wrote: > I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always > been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you > might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice > and didn't mean to kill. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 13:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:02:27 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> References: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Message-ID: Date: Fri 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 EDT From: Zev Sero > Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? > Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? > If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. Oros Eilim Me'adamim are explained by the Yerushalmi to mean rams hit - whilst living - so as to produce bruising, which subsequently produced the 'red' skins, on being flayed.Rashi (ad loc.) appears to concede with that explanation.Lulei d'midtofino, I would suggest the redness was due to a tannery process, much as the old Yemenite Sifrei Torah were reddish [brown].(Note: Me'adamim is most probably a brownish red, as in Poroh Adumoh.) Dovid Rubin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 10:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar Message-ID: <20160403170927.74F6617FAFA@nexus.stevens.edu> Just like most other Bar Mitzvah bochurim, my son Mordechai Zev started donning his Tefillin a while before his actual Bar Mitzvah this past Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini, as part of his preparations. Yet, unlike most others who start donning Tefillin two or three months, or more commonly, one month prior to the actual 13th birthday, my son started wearing Tefillin 31 days before his Bar Mitzvah, an opinion not explicitly found in any early halachic codex. But to understand why, some background about Double Adars is in order... To understand why, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos! Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 03:17:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy Message-ID: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> By Dr Lawrence Fishman or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: In many academic circles, previous to the excavation of Khirbet Qeiyafa and its publication, scholars denied the entire notion of a centralized Jewish polity in the late 11th-early 9th centuries BCE. Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as some of the discoveries in ancient Jerusalem have shown that this view should be rejected.... Because of the [Bible's] presentation of [the history of this period] in quasi-mythic terms, it cannot be taken literally by historians. Yet properly evaluated it can and should contribute in broad outlines to the construction of a historical picture of our period.... The early kings of Israel rose to political power beginning with a limited territorial base later supplemented by military conquest. Saul's territory was that of the tribe of Benjamin. His son, Ishbaal (this name appears on an inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa), who ruled for a very brief period..., also claimed to rule over Ephraim, Gilead, the Jezreel [Valley], and Asher. David first ruled in the territory of Judah. His capital was in Hebron in the Judean Hills for seven years until he moved it to Jerusalem. The Bible attests to his beginning as a chieftain and traces the evolution and machinations that led to his kingship.... As David gained power and expanded from his Judean base, he ruled parts of what would later be considered Israel.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 04:13:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:13:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy In-Reply-To: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> References: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57039DBE.4010907@starways.net> Aside from his name being Schiffman, and not Fishman, I have to disagree with his identifications. The Iron II remains he's talking about are not from the United Monarchy. Rather, they are from the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement. And in fact, they *match* the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement, but do not in any way match the United Monarchy, which is why he had to give the caveat that: /The elimination of these more extreme, minimalist views of the period of the United Monarchy does not give us an excuse to adopt a simplistic or fundamentalist reading of the biblical historical accounts and the archaeological evidence. Rather, it calls upon us to ask how, when taken together, the age-old historical traditions of the Jewish people can be melded with archaeological evidence from the Land of Israel and evidence from surrounding cultures in the ancient Near East. Our challenge, therefore, is not to ask whether or not biblical accounts and archaeological evidence are true or not, but rather how, when taken together, the evidence available to us can allow us to reconstruct a sense of what the society was like that produced the biblical traditions that we have received.// / This is a roundabout way of saying that the remains don't match the biblical narrative, but we can, if we try really hard, kinda see how the remains were later enlarged into the biblical fantasy. He also says: /In the monarchic period a uniformity of architectural forms throughout Judah/Israel has been discovered... Architecturally the public city gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor are strikingly similar: the walls are very thick and feature casemates where people lived or that were used for storage... The uniformity of the features of the great public buildings in these cities suggests a royal administration./ Substituting Iron II for the incorrect "monarchic period", this is understandable, since the uniform architecture was the result of local governors from the same Assyrian empire. But of course, the architecture of Solomon was on a scale far above that of the Iron II buildings. Interestingly enough, the cities where these uniform city gates were found are, each of them, in the regional capitols of areas conquered by Assyria. He leaves off Lachish, which has the same gates, and which was the Assyrian capitol of their province of Judea in the time between their conquest of all Judea other than Jerusalem and their withdrawal after they were struck down before the gates of Jerusalem. Lisa On 4/5/2016 1:17 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > By Dr Lawrence Fishman > > or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 14:57:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:57:10 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 From: Marty Bluke via Avodah ... > The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are > made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time > and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an > additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the > above 2 issues. > 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't > peel off or crack, it stays black > 2. The sides are black as well. > The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the > traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't > the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the > gedolim today use black on black retzuos This is not so simple. It might be argued that the 'optional' addition of a glossy side is not so optional. Rashi says, the outside of the retsuos need to be the 'noy' [beauty]. In the old manner of painting - and not soaking - the retsuos, this was quite simple. The painted side represented the noy. Soaking the skins does not give a pleasant finished article. Thus, i would argue, the addition of a glossy side is imperative. A point that was missed is the opinion of the Arizal, that the retsuos of shel rosh should be black on both sides. (However, from previous argument it would appear that might entail a nice finish on both sides.) The objection that this new process is a chiddush is somewhat faulty. I possess retsuos of over 200 years. It is clear that the original method of manufacture was very different 200 years ago. The entire skin was not treated. Rather, strips were cut off and then painted. This enabled the sides to be painted as well. Thus, the entire way retsuos are manufactured nowadays represents a departure from tradition. The reason, perhaps, why gedolim may be reluctant on taking on this chumrah, is that it may be misconstrued as halacha. Dovid Rubin Your soul is a part of God, part of His Infinite Essence. You are beyond limit, estimation or assessment. Ever since creation, the world has been waiting for you. Since your soul realised itself, it has been waiting for its time to perform its unique tasks of improvement. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 06:27:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:27:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakheh ess shinnav Message-ID: <57050EC8.1010702@gmail.com> I got a laugh from Larry's responses: >From http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2016/04/05/weekly-digest-news-and-essays-in-and-out-of-orthodoxy-week-of-parshas-tazria-5776/ ...Dr. Steven Bayme, who has emerged recently as the primary spokesman for PORAT...validates Biblical Criticism even when it negates parts of the Torah.... Snippet: ''Did Moses actually write that Abraham pursued his foes until 'Dan' in order to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:14), or was the place name a later editorial insert to indicate what by then had become a well-known locale? Were there two ?Yairs? who each happened to have conquered 30 villages in the Bashan 200 years apart (Deut. 3:14; Judg. 10:3-4) or was this but one incident occurring later but inserted retrospectively into the Book of Numbers as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Bashan?'' =================== larry rothenberg April 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm Steve Bayme, 3000 years from now ? ''Were there really two presidents named Bush, a father and son, who both went to war with an Iraqi dictator named Saddam Hussein? or was this but one incident occurring later but added retrospectively into American history textbooks as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Iraq?'' ==================== Naftali April 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm In the offending ''snippet'' all Dr Bayme does is raise questions. Is the mere asking of questions now considered unOrthodox? in which case, what does an Orthodox Seder look like? -------------- larry April 5, 2016 at 3:46 pm The answer depends on whether you are a chacham or a rasha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:14:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chayav Livsumei In-Reply-To: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> References: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160406191405.GB5241@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : In the words of Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter in Torah Web on "Torah : and Nevuah" I found it at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rsch_tzav.html : In his commentary to the mishnayos (end of Sanhedrin), Rambam lists what : he considers are the thirteen principles of our faith. We believe in : prophecy. It is possible for G-d to communicate with man. We also believe : that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was on a higher level than that of : any of the other prophets. What does this mean? Is Rambam grading the : prophets? If Moshe Rabbeinu gets an A+, what does Micha get? And what : grade does Chavakuk deserve? : : No, this is not a matter of grading Moshe's prophecy. What Rambam means to : say is that the only prophet who was ever given mitzvos (with a binding : force for all future generations) was Moshe Rabbeinu. His was the only : prophecy that was on the level of Torah. I didn't get this paragraph. Because: 1- As it says further down: : Moshe Rabbeinu was the only prophet who was given what we technically : refer to as "mitzvos", commandments which are binding throughout all : the future generations, because they constitute the description of G-d's : essence, which is not subject to change. None of the prophets were ever : shown "the image of God", i.e., were never given "mitzvos". They were : only given a "hora'as sha'ah", of a temporary nature only... Well, if Moshe alone was shown the tzelem E-lokim (which is necessary to receive mitzvos), isn't that grading MRAH's above Micha or Chavaquq, who did not? Now if you're going to say that's the content of the nevu'ah, not the quality of navi (pe'ula, not gavra), the pasuq itself says, "Lo qam navi od beYisrael keMosheh, asher yeda'o H' Panim el panim." (Devarim 34:10) 2- The Rambam himself says that Moshe's nevu'ah was qualitatively unique. In the 7th ikar, the Rambam describes the "peh el peh" (Bamidbar 12:8) nevu'ah of Moshe as being unique in 4 ways: a- no intermediary -- nevu'ah direct from HQBH b- he didn't need to be asleep or in a trance c- it didn't cause him to weaken and shudder (c.f. Daniel 8:8-9, 16) d- Moshe could choose when he got nevu'ah; other nevi'im received when and if Hashem chose. In the Moreh 2:35, we find: ... For I must tell you that whatever I say here of prophecy refers exclusively to the form of the prophecy of all prophets before and after Moses. But as to the prophecy of Moses I will not discuss it in this work with one single word, whether directly or indirectly, because, in my opinion, the term prophet is applied to Moses and other men homonymously. A similar distinction, I think, must be made between the miracles wrought by Moses and those wrought by other prophets, for his signs are not of the same class as the miracles of other prophets... The word "nev'uah" is only used as a homonym -- it has a different meaning when used WRT Moshe than when we call anyone else a navi / nev'uah. This goes beyond grading Moshe an A+ and some other navi an A or less. That would be saying they are at different gradations on the same scale. What Moshe did wasn't nevu'ah as all in the same sense of the word. It was a different type of perception. See also Moreh 2:45, where he lists 11 gradations of nevu'ah -- all of which in the usual sense of the word. (Moshe's being to different to even be listed as a 12th.) The Rambam was far from afraid of ranking prophecy, if not prophets. But he does make a distinction between Moshe and the other nevi'im beyond who received mitzvos and who not. As I said, I don't think that's RHS's intent either, as can bee seen in the second snippet I left in this post. I just don't know what his intent is. 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 Wed Apr 6 13:26:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:26:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:28:26AM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : http://shuihaber.com/2016/03/31/the-arba-parshiyos/ ... : Rav Sperber explains that on the 5th Shabbos, they would then go back : to where they had left off. This seems to be the literal meaning of the : mishna that says: "on the fifth Shabbos, we resume reading like usual." As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also possible. The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a : 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year : cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the : Community in Eretz Yisroel. Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from EY than among Sepharadim. The question is when did Ashkenaz itself switch. It must have been centuries before the time in discussion in any case. Machzor Vitri (R' Simchah miVitrie -- a talmid of Rashi and the Ri's grandfather) discusss leiniing Bereishis on the 2nd day of Sheini Atzeres, the terms for Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis, and even the reshus for each. But it would be ironic if Ashkenaz became the bastion of Babylonian lening, spreading it to EY. I guess it's true: there is no one so vehement as the newly converted. : Lastly, there is an old minhag to say Yotzros and Krovos during the : Shabbos morning Tefilla... : This minhag became popular amongst the Chassidim... But I think most loyally maintained bvy Yekkes, due to the aforementioned ancient Ashkenazi attitude toward piut in general. : The Rema comments that the R'i, Rashba and the Tur all hold that there : is no issue with interrupting your regular tefilla for this, but if you : do not say the Yotzros it is still fine... (Note: change fn 10 to "OC 68:1".) The Rama takes it for granted that the minyan is saying them, "vekhein nohagin bekhol hameqomos le'amram". So even though he hold "vehameiqil ve'eino omeram lo hifsid" -- as long as you're with the tzibbur and not even learning during the piyut -- I am not sure he is actually advocating for skipping it. Ad RSH put it "it is still fine". I just wanted to point out that he would NOT permit what I myself do -- use the time to learn. "Ein le'adam lifrosh atzmo meihatzibur". He repeated this in 90:10, where he advocates saying the piyutim with the tzibbur. "Velo yifrosh min hatzibur afilu la'asoq bedivrei Torah". : The Minhag of the Chasam Sofer was not to recite the piyutim during : davening, rather he would sing them during the Shabbos or YomTov : seudah. The Mesora is that the Chasam Sofer learnt this from his rebbe : the Baal Hafla'ah who learnt it form the Mezritcher Maggid who learnt : it from the Baal Shem Tov... Whatever happened to the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah"? 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 Apr 6 13:58:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406205847.GE5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger responded: : > I think those two are different in kind. : : > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use : > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) : > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. : : Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible : hypothetically, albeit not situationally? We are comparing two ways of making the door open. If making the door open is not a halachic problem, then there is no contrast. I am saying that nothing physical happens to an electric eye or UV sensor to cause the motor to go on. However, with the mat, one is moving two metal plates together (or a conductive tape against a plate). Cut away the rubber, and you would see the circuit close. There is a visible cause and a visible effect. Even if part of the causality is only explainable by appeal to the quantum scale. (BTW, atoms are mostly vacuum. It's only quantum scale repulsion of electrons that fully explains why hitting a ball with a bat changes the course of the ball; why things don't just go through eachother.) ... : If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For : it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the : electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I : missing something here? It wouldn't be the motion of the electronc, even if they were macroscopic. You might as well prohibit flushing toilets and rolling marbles down a ramp, if one inherently prohibites the giving elecrons a chance to use their potential energy (voltage). All of the theories about why electricity is assur depend on the visible effects of the cercuit, or the visible making of a circuit, not the moving of current itself. (Except of course RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan even without a Sanhedrin.) : Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which : opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei. Also on that list: sparking, unless the motor's spin rate is based on the frequency of the AC current coming in. But PRDNL wouldn't help with a deOraisa. (RYE Spektor and ROY permit it for a derabbanan, the MB only for a double-derabbanan.) Water meters were mentioned. I posted about PRDNL anhd water meters in 2012 . Click on the subject line and see the thread. : Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe : Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone : on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the : electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur : d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." ... That's OC 4:84. Who doesn't talk about the invisible, but about electric power. "Vreo'in zeh bechush", although he means you can hear it from the loudspeaker. I do not see RMF saying that power that goes into results that in principle you cannot sense would be assur. : I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does : try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can : be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has : something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both : teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". : It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely : speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be : meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should : also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. But another part of the permissibility of speaking in the presence of someone with a hearing aid is that at times even with the hearing aid, the user doesn't hear anything, thus ruling out pesiq reishei, reducing it to davar she'ein miskavein. The problem I have with your "it sounds to me" is that it begs the question: Can there be havarah that can't be sensed? (Including: Can there be havarah if something burns below yad soledes bo?) Tir'u baTov! -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 Wed Apr 6 14:50:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between > Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the > other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also > possible. It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there are two. > The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read whichever sidra is next on the roster, but we are not back on track because we still have some of the four parshiyos coming up. Only on the shabbos after Hachodesh are we "back on track", at least until Pesach comes. >> This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a >> 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year >> cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the >> Community in Eretz Yisroel. This explanation is missing a major piece of the puzzle. It's not that the Baalei Tosfos had such enormous influence on Bnei EY that they induced them to change their minhag. They never had such an influence. Rather, the crusaders completely wiped out the Yishuv of EY. By the end of the 12th century there were essentially no Jews left; the only place minhag EY survived was at the EY shul in Cairo. Slowly EY began to be repopulated, mostly by Ashkenazi olim. When the Ramban arrived there was a small community in Akko (which was under Xian rule) but not even a minyan of Jews living in Y'm. Thus the new EY community that developed, and that the Sefardim found there when they came after 1492, was composed of European olim with European minhagim, including reading the Torah on the Bavli cycle. > Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of > the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that > Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from > EY than among Sepharadim. How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. -- 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 Apr 6 15:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:10:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read : whichever sidra is next on the roster... Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? ... :> Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of :> the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that :> Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from :> EY than among Sepharadim. : How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue : for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. Then why did Ashk start out triennial? Admittedly, it changed by Rashi's day, so "start out" was quite short, but still, there are records of debate about it. Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the siyum every third Shavuos.) Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were shorter. There are better indicators, but this period in Jewish History is more RRW's thing than mine. Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and finally Egypt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 15:22:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:22:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... > :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. > > : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we > : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read > : whichever sidra is next on the roster... > > Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" > for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track > but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. >> How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue >> for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. > Then why did Ashk start out triennial? I've never heard that it did. > Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. How so? > (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the > siyum every third Shavuos.) Sorry, I don't recall that. > Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that > died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were > shorter. Is there evidence for that, or is it just speculation? BTW Targum survived in some communities for some special readings, even after it stopped being used for the whole Torah. So it's possible that when and where Akdamos were written it was still done on Shavuos even if it wasn't the whole year. > Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and > finally Egypt. Again, is this established, or speculation derived from precisely the proposition that you are trying to derive from it? BTW I just came across another survival of ancient minhag EY: The kiddush Rosh Chodesh that is well-attested in EY in the first millennium (e.g. in Mas' Sofrim and in the list of differences between EY and Bavel) survived into the 13th century in the Minhag-EY shul in Fostat, but only on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Eventually minhag EY died out in Egypt too, but the idea of having a special seder Rosh Chodesh Nissan lived on, and is still practised by Egyptian Jews today, under the name "Seder al-Tawhid" (Seder Hayyichud). -- 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 Apr 6 15:29:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:29:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between >> Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the >> other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also >> possible. >> > > It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. > However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. > There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there > are two. There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and Hahodesh. There is also a mnemonic for the dates of the hafsakot according on the date of 1 Adar, "Zivdu: Zyah Bu Dad Ubyu" but I've never found it very useful because the mnemonic is such a tongue-twister that I can never remember it and end up working out the dates from scratch and reverse engineering the mnemonic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 17:59:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:22:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. : The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is : irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. Again, I am not insisting this implication is muchrach, but look at the mishnah (Megillah 3:4): RC Adar that falls out on Shabbos, we read P Sheqalim... On the 2nd, Zakhor On the 3rd, Parah Adumah On the 4th, "HaChodesh haZeh Lakhem" On the 5th, we return to the sequence... The Ran (quoted by Tosafos YT) only discussed "basheini" saying it's the 2nd week after Sheqalim or after the break described in the ellipses at the end of the first line of my "translation". :> Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. : How so? The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning of speach..." Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying he is prefacing. In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn bera H'..." 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 Wed Apr 6 18:10:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:10:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5705B370.3080401@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 08:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning > of speach..." > > Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into > referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY > beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying > he is prefacing. > > In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning > of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn > bera H'..." Why not a preface to the day's laining? -- 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 Apr 6 19:33:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:33:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger's posts are very well thought-out. I've reached the limits of my knowledge on this topic. I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? RMB wrote: > ... RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we > all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan > even without a Sanhedrin. Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we *know* are working, but *appear* to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really can't complain. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 21:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. > The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between > 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd > and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and > Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and > Hahodesh. Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. I don't see how a siman helps with that. [Email #2. -mi] On 04/06/2016 09:10 PM, Zev Sero wrote [about Akdamus]: > Why not a preface to the day's laining? Note that Tosfos Megillah 24a d"h Uvenavi says that in their day they still did targum of the haftaros on Pesach and Shavuos, and also that of matan torah (i.e. the leining of the first day of Shavuos), but not that of any other leining or haftarah (d"h Lo Shanu on the previous page). Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. -- 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 Apr 6 23:04:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:04:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. >> The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between >> 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd >> and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and >> Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and >> Hahodesh. >> > > Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. > I don't see how a siman helps with that. I checked RSZ's source, which turns out to be Yerushalmi Megilla 3:5. The context of the siman is a mahloket in the Yerushalmi whether Parah is defined as the Shabbat before Hahodesh or the Shabbat after Purim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 03:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:18:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407101838.GB3151@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:10:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who : wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he : was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since : by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. ... in parallel to the already existing Aqdamos. So it could be a 2nd hand reflection of the cycle in use when Aqdamus was written, rather than a dispoof of connection to the cycle. (BTW, the "-ta" ending is traditionally ascribed to the idea that when a Jew stops learning Torah (tav) he must immediately begin again (alef). A homily that does fit a siyum on Devarim and starting Bereishis far better than leining inyana deyoma. Of course, who knows if that was really the author's intent. It is a "cute" understanding of the piut and worth sharing either way.) And Yetziv Pisgam does not refer to pausing to give a preface before starting The Word. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:55:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, > where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his > conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads > him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, > I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to > Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. > And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches > Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need > to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we know are > working, but appear to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are > issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really > can't complain. > Akiva Miller Pretty much what R' Asher Weiss says un putting electricity in the maakeh bpatish category defined as things that chazal didn't fit in other categories. However I think he would say gdolei haposkim will come to a consensus, not "each for himself" on major categories. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 08:40:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Kitniyot, paper goods Message-ID: <20160407154022.7A2F717FBF0@nexus.stevens.edu> Can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. On Pesach, can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover? A. Paper plates, paper towels and napkins generally contain starch. Some forms of raw starch are kitniyot, such as corn starch, while other forms of starch, such as wheat starch, are actual chametz. In the U.S, it can safely be assumed that starch used in manufacturing is kitniyot, most probably corn-based. Though one should not intentionally add kitniyot to food, with respect to paper goods this is not a concern because the starch that is part and parcel of the paper itself is nifsal mei'achila (inedible). (If paper goods contain wheat starch, the fact that it is nifsal mei'achila may not suffice to permit their use, see Magen Avrohom 442:4). Based on the above, in the US, one may use paper plates, paper towels and napkins even if not certified for Passover. For a full list of non-food items that can be used on Passover without certification please go to https://oukosher.org/passover/guidelines/non-food-items/non-food-items/. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 09:53:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160407165337.GA21819@aishdas.org> RAM entered the discussion with: > There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, > but in my experience this idea is very new. And appears to be trying to leave with: > I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great > example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, > when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? (I agree that we lack clarity here, but I am not sure why RAM thinks it's a problem with the language rather than the ideas themselves.) Well, except that this notion that halakhah doesn't concern itself with phenomenona that people cannot experience unaided (in any situation) isn't limited to a discussion of electricity or even of Shabbos. The idea that canges internal to a chip in a fitbit wouldn't be an issue for hilkhos Shabbos (until there is some macroscopic effect of those changes) is by parallel to discussions of the permissibility of drinking water that contains creatures about the same size as a trace (thinkg "wire") on a chip. 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 Thu Apr 7 12:25:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:25:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy Message-ID: <20160407192530.8B8E617FAC2@nexus.stevens.edu> Last Shabbos we read Parshas Shmini, best known for discussing and specifying the requirements for discerning which animals are considered kosher. But what is a buffalo considered? Can we partake of a nice juicy buffalo burger? Although the Shulchan Aruch himself rules that a buffalo is considered a kosher beheimah, it is quite certain that he was not referring to our American buffalo, which, actually a bison, was unknown at the time... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:14:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:14:33 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A study of Dayan Usher Weiss on LED lights in his Tshuvos will reveal his Shita that such things are likely to be considered an issur under the rubric of Makeh B'patish. I didn't merit understanding all the halachic logic but I feel he would apply it here as well. We can be halachically exploitative and also include the view that your walking on Shabbos should not be the same as Chol! I'm sure many of us have seen the strange Shabbos walk avoiding large steps. Walking with a Fitbit may possibly be construed as transgressing this possuk in Nach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 07:30:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:30:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Matzah before Passover Message-ID: <20160408143111.6480417FAAD@nexus.stevens.edu> I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan... OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Am I permitted to eat matzah which is labeled "Not Kosher for Passover"? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Matzos which are labeled "Not Kosher for Passover" are made without a full-time mashgiach present during production, and the water used in kneading the dough is not mayim she'lanu (specially drawn water). Though we would not eat these matzahs on Pesach, it is not certain that the matzahs are absolute chametz. Mishnah Berurah 471:12 writes that the Rabbinic prohibition to not eat matzah on Erev Pesach, applies even to matzah that has folds or bubbles, since such matzahs are of questionable status, and they are not absolute chametz. This would imply that "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs may not be eaten Erev Pesach, since these matzahs are also of questionable status. Nonetheless, Rav Schachter, Shlita, maintains that the definition of matzah with respect to the minhag (practiced by some) not to eat matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh is not the same as the definition of matzah relative to Erev Pesach. Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 214:1) writes that a minhag is a form of a vow. Vows are interpreted in accordance with common usage of language. Since most people consider "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs to be chametz, they may be consumed until Erev Pesach. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] Forward Unsubscribe [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 09:01:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:01:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eshbaal Message-ID: <20160408160147.GA26885@aishdas.org> >From http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/first-person-banning-baal or http://j.mp/1VdtbxE :-)BBii! -Micha Biblical Archaeology Society First Person: Banning Ba'al As published in the March/April 2016 Biblical Archaeology Review Hershel Shanks -- 04/04/2016 Was the proper name Eshbaal -- man of Ba'al -- banned in Judah after King David's time? A recent analysis suggests that it was. Ba'al, meaning lord or master, was a common divine appellative in Canaan and neighboring areas during Biblical periods, most frequently referring to the storm god. Very recently an inscription was uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa -- a site already famous for a late 11th-10th-century B.C.E. inscription -- about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. According to excavator Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, the site is probably an imposing fortress erected by King David facing the Philistines. ... The name 'Ishba'al or, more commonly, Eshbaal, is well known from the Bible. It means "man of Ba'al." (The name Beda` appears for the first time in this inscription.) ... In the Bible various Ba'al names appear of people who lived in King David's time or earlier (Jerubbaal [Judges 6:32], Meribbaal [1 Chronicles 9:40], etc.). But the Bible mentions no Ba'al names after this -- neither Ba'al nor Eshbaal. Ba'al names simply do not appear in the Bible after David's time. The archaeological situation is a bit, but not completely, different. We have more than a thousand seals and seal impressions (bullae) and hundreds of inscriptions from Israel and Judah from the post-David period (ninth-sixth centuries B.C.E.). The name Eshbaal is not to be found among these names. The situation with the name Ba'al is slightly different; it does occasionally appear in Israel -- and of course in Philistia, Ammon and Phoenicia. But not in Judah! It seems that Ba'al and Eshbaal were banned in David's kingdom. One reason may have been that, at least officially, Judah was monotheistic. Thus, names constructed with a form of a foreign deity's name -- especially of Ba'al, who was Yahweh's rival -- would not have been considered kosher. In addition, David's predecessor and rival, King Saul, fathered a son named Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33 [2]) who reigned for two years (2 Samuel 2:10) -- another good reason to bar the name in David's kingdom. [2] "Ishbosheth" in the account in 2 Samuel 2-4. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 08:52:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:52:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> References: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160411155203.GA3225@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:36:04PM IDT, R Ben Waxman posted to Areivim: : https://twitter.com/benwaxman/status/718898333075566592 : Translation of something Rav Sharki said in an article on dati : students attending university: : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? This has to be a mistranslation. After all, being unable to find an answer is FAR short of proving no answer exists. Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and tragedy. 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil 3. God exists First proposal. Therefore 4. There is no evil But observation will tell you: 5. There is evil We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. So really only 3 & 5 are plausible open to denial: either there is no G-d, or there is no evil. As I posted there: Theists consistently reject #2 "If an OOO Being exists, there would be no evil." That is given short shrift, and therefore the real argument is really swept under the rug. A world in which the OOO Being provides all the good might be worse than a world in which the OOO Being wants to provide others the opportunity to be provides of good themselves. The assumption is that a world of passive recipients is better (more good) than a world of contributors. This argument is kind of like saying that: 1- A parent has the ability to see more obvious sources of pain in advance and help a child avoid them. 2- A good parent would try to do so. Yet 3- Good parents allow their toddlers to fall on their bums when learning to walk -- despite seeing it coming. Therefore, 4- there are no good parents. The answer is -- #2 is false. There are better goods than preventing all pain. But notice I didn't answer the question of theodicy, tzadiq vera lo. Arguably the question is unanswerable to humans. (Admittedly there are O Jews who deny #5, and assert that tragedy is an illusion. My argument is more that the best universe is one that has the lesser evil, that a paradox in the human condition makes a world with no tragedy itself imperfect. The question of the reality of evil is a tangent worth exploring, but not to go even further afield than my point.) R' Sherky is NOT possibly arguing we should therefore accept Prof Haslanger's argument, though. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: While RUS's name appears around the web both as "Sharky" and "Sherky", I'm going with the evidence of . -- 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 Mon Apr 11 16:21:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:21:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag Message-ID: I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, no chrain on fish. I wonder if any other groups have such a minhag , a nd what might be the origin of such a custom. 2nd question. In re nuts on pesach , It seems all the major agencies cite that any additive free whole nuts are ok without special cert. ( pecans excepted) . However the detroit vaad recommends assuring the nuts are paked in a hametz free facility. This is NOT noted by OU, CRChic, etc. i wonder if this would be an economic hardship that the non haredim lidvar hashem would hold to. Interestingly the costco kirkland nuts remark that they maybe packed in a place w wheat, soy ,etc... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 18:59:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:59:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat > ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, > no chrain on fish Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 08:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> References: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> Message-ID: <570D11D4.8000908@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 09:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: >> I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat >> ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, >> no chrain on fish http://chabadlibrary.org/books/chasidim/otzar/4/14/39.htm Note that although this does include all the ingredients of charoses, it does not include eggs, or the greens that might be used for karpas, contrary to the sources I will cite later. > Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first > day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first > day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, > so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. > > Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems > to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be > "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. The minhag not to eat maror before the seder goes back at least to the Rashba and Rashi. Although the Bet Yosef dismisses it, the Rama cites it, and it appears to be common in many communities, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi. The BY's question is answered by many, saying that even in the case of matzah "teavon" in this context means novelty, and the pleasure that comes from that, not an actual desire for the taste of the food, so it doesn't matter whether the food tastes good or bad, or isn't even tasted at all. See under "shulchan orech", that the Ashkenazi custom is not to eat even whole eggs at the first seder, but rather to eat only beaten eggs, which is probably the origin of the common minhag to eat the egg mashed up in salt-water as a "soup". See also who says it's the common minhag of sefardim not to eat lettuce or greens, beyond the requirements, for a day before each seder, including at the first seder. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 14:28:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:28:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness Message-ID: Cannot taste the bitterness 1. "Filled me with bitter herbs - Hisbiaani bMrorim - hirvani Laana - sated of bitter" - Midrash Eichah in Psicha and on the Passuk - compares the Exodus of Mitzrayim to the Exile after the First Temple was destroyed. 2. Apparently the bitter taste of these vegetables was familiar to all. 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after kiddush. 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush. A simple person might prefer to start off with Maror ASAP. Someone may have stolen the Karpas. Those who pursue radishes for Karpas may prefer it as a secondary variety of Maror, reminding us not to consider this the REAL maror, which can only be eaten with the Matzah, in advance of next year's Korban Pesach. 5. What if one ate the Karpas leaning - bhesseiba? That would explain the child's train of thought - you eat bitter herbs - for slavery and you ate them leaning? Sorry - I have no source yet for that. When Matza was just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed Thaddeus of Rome. 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth, just call in Rabbi Vaya to check it, or alternatively? take it off the menu, finding some other food for appetizer. 7. skip the appetizer. Renal patients who cannot drink begin with Kiddush on Matzah, which some would much prefer. The Magid would be after the meal had initialized. 8. Lately I checked two heads of Romaine lettuce. When I sample some leaves, no bitterness was to be found, just a very mild sweetness. in fact the Pri Chadash in back of SA Orach Chaim - openly advocates that totally sweet lettuce - sans bitterness - is perfectly acceptable! To recap, the Mishnah lists five grain varieties for Matzah, which are exclusive. It then lists 5 varieties for Maror, but even the Amoraim debated what to buy. Rav Huna Bar abba ? sought Maror - the bitterest herb eponymous with bitterness, as the Mehadrin would seek. Rava chided him - Chas Rachmana Alan - Hashem had consideration for us and prefers Chassa (pun - means lettuce) which has some sweetness. 9. I take this metaphorically - Hashem is always keeping the balance of sweetness and bittterness in the fortunes of the Jerwish People. Fixating on bitterness can lead to bad results. 10. The Pri Chadash quotes the famous Aruch (of Rome, a century before Rashi, disciple perhaps of Rabeinu Chananeil) on Charchavina, one of the 5 species of the Mishna, defined generically - "one sort of bitter herbs". 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 sons taste it ? 12. Is Maror a specific species exact type of plant? Ateres Tzvi (margin of OC 473) and Elya Rabba combine to say there is a family called Lettuga - lettuces. That helps immensely - as the leading species candidate is "bitter lettuce" - Hebrew Chassa Matzpen - has spine of bumps on its leaf, and is a glorified dandelion! My neighbor the botanist has no idea where to find it but he offered me some fresh horseradish leaves. Horseradish relates to the cabbage family - including endives, which get some mention. 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection. My father's tears would flow as he ground his horseradish every year. The Chochmas Shlomo, Rav Shlomo Kluger, seems to have the high road of directness here. Rambamists can see that the examples of foods barely edible - which barely are considered normal foods - in Shvisas Asor - are these very vegetables - Chizrin. 15. The famous Rav Chaim Berlin, son of the Netziv, apparently got medical advice not to eat horseradish, and sought grounds to absolve his Neder. He sent a letter to his father the Netziv whether he should continue to eat Khrein. Netziv - as predictable - answers - use Sallatin - lettuce - like the common practice, and also the zayis olive size is very small. [Meromei Sadeh]. 16. In OC 473 the Lvush and Elya Rabba - praise to the publishers of the new Levush set - discuss Maror, and Ateres Tzvi explains that any lettuce is fine, as long as it is bitter. 17. Biologically chickory and lettuce are very close. If even the cabbages - the latin name braccidae are also included in Maror, then perhaps both kale in its beauty and varieties are included, even perhaps arugula. 18. Perhaps I will make the bracha on kale, then arugula, then Romaine, then horseradish for mimetic imitation of my father. 19. For me - no more sweet or tasteless Maror, I cannot make it bitter anymore. 20. See also Kovetz - in back of the old Rambams. See Aruch al Hashas who has in kilayim and in other places diagrams and exact species names for all the candidates mentioned in the mishnayos. There is an alphabetical index in the last volume. 21. Identification of Chizrin with Chazeres is no sure thing. Professor Felix has a sefer called haChaklaut..... which explains from a farmer's point of view what it means that a crop thrives in the shade. 22. This is actually a call for help! I imagine most people deal with these questions annually. Please - any opinion or information will be helpful to me. 23. David Wacholder 5:15 PM (2 minutes ago) Email: dwacholder at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Wed Apr 13 09:07:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:07:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum Message-ID: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: https://soundcloud.com/jroot-radio/yosef-wikler-apr-07?in=jroot-radio/sets/kashrus-on-the-air. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me or click here to subscribe kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 13 13:16:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum In-Reply-To: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds > this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in > 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered > Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's > largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... This is last years info. The link is to an article from 5775. The OU & Star-K are still certifying quinoa, as they did last year. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 14 18:51:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:51:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos Message-ID: Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this (even opening with the remark that this halacha is "pashut - simple"), yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. I will concede that this was a literally parenthetical (or rather, bracketed) comment, and perhaps we should not darshen too much into it. But on the other hand, he had the option of saying that a choleh may *eat* kitnyos himself, and insted he took the extra step of saying that *we* may do the cooking. And yet, the Chofetz Chaim omitted the warning which is so ubiquitous today, that the cooking should be done in separate pots, not to be eaten from by healthy Ashkenazim. So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. (Plenty of poskim talk about ta'aroves kitniyos, but that's usually an after-the-fact situation, and I don't want to get bogged down on whether or not the situations are similar. I'd rather hear about those who explicitly address the keilim issue.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 07:15:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:15:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160415141538.GA30368@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:51:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that : Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid : ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. RMF explains that one may drink whisky (51 weeks a year) aged in wine casks because we do not prohibit ta'am stam yeinam. The core of his argument is that stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6 (YD 134:5). One can taste the wine in a mixture of one part wine to 6 parts water. (IM YD 1:62) Well, qitniyos is batel berov. (Rama OC 453:1, see MB ad loc that explains the Rama must mean where the qitniyos is a mi'ut, and is not permitting every mixture.) Bringing me to the need to switch the formula for KLP Coca Cola. Corn is a late edition to qitniyos, as it is a New World plant. Corn syrup adds the issue of mei qitniyos. A 12 oz can of coke has 140 Cal (Pepsi: 150). High fructose corn syrup is 4 Cal/gm, so that 12 fluid oz can cannot contain more than 35 gm = 1-1/4 oz (weight) mei qitniyos. Less than 10%, never mind rov. So, the problem with standard American Coke is mei iffy-qitniyos that is batul. And yet it's avoided on Pesach? (According to 80% of tasters prefer Mexican Coke, which -- like KLP Coke -- only differs by the use of sugar rather than HFCS. So I hope no one from Coke is actually reading this post.) :-)BBii! -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 Fri Apr 15 07:49:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness Message-ID: 1. R' Micha pointed out the Yerushalmi discussion whether Chassa metuka sweet lettuce is kosher. That shows that the name - Chazeret Chasa - synonymous with Marror is sufficient, and bitter taste is not necessary. 2. R' Chaim Kanievsky points out that the Chazon Ish - Orach Chaim page 398 in Otzar Hachochma - strongly rejects that conclusion from the Yerushalmi! (hat tip to R' Kalman Gutman!) 3. After 6 lines pointing out how vital the taste of Maror is, CI shows the absurds of such a conclusion - if so you can leave the Maror in Chazeres, and need not taste it at all - swallow in a sieve - and since any vegetable which is bitter is sufficient to be Yotzei, we see that the bitter taste is the governing principle. 4. 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond edible. 6. Thus we should pursue bitter lettuce. The paradox is that the lettuce industry spends all its resources to prevent "bolting" - becoming bitter. The economy runs on sweet lettuce, as CI also pointed out. Pesach is in spring, so it is not so simple. 7. That would be the practical problem the Yerushalmi is attacking. You do not need the strongest bitterness, mild transitional bitterness sufficient. 8. The super-kosher bug-free industry now markets "greenhouse" kale and arugula, which are mildly bitter. I purchased both last night. Usually they are used by French chefs. This is a classic Chazon Ish. He wanted Torah based lifestyle, and Mehadrin bitterness in Maror fits right in with his theme. Build on the sound simple meaning of the Torah. -- David Wacholder Email: dwacholder at gmail.com dwacholder at optonline.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:59:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:59:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos Message-ID: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Or if you want, I am equally reviving the threads "Minhag Avos and Minhag haMakom" (see the group of threads at ) "Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva" "Paradigm Changes in Halacha" or the quite timely "obsession with kitniyot" In AhS this week, I found I was not alone in concluding from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim ch.4, cases in both TB and RY) that there is a general rule binding one (of a community) to maintain minhag avos. (At least when there is no conflicting single minhag hamaqom.) The AhS (YD 119:42, closing paranthetic) cites the minhag of Benei Baishan (Pesachim 50b) not to travel from Tzur to Tzidon on erev Shabbos. His case is a visitor who is keeping he minhagim of his host community. The Shakh and Maharal Chaviv say that if everyone else is eatting something that by his minhag is prohibited -- not as local pesaq, but as actual minhag -- he may eat it with them. The AhS leaves it with a tzarikh iyun gadol, because visiting a place should not allow their minhagim to override minhag avos. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:43:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:43:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57110C14.1000403@sero.name> On 04/15/2016 10:49 AM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: > 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your > lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond > edible. This is not true. The ChTz says no such thing. -- 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 Sun Apr 17 09:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit Message-ID: I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat. Both of them are important experts in halacha and modern technology Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need t fixler said he heard the same psak from t ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 03:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:27:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 1:02 PM Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both > Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat.... > Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it > was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need r fixler said he heard > the same psak from r ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan Why is it not mesaken mane? [Transliteration mine. -micha] -- Shui Haber From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:27:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Shui Haber wrote: > Why is it not mesaken mane? [transliteration still mine -micha] They hold that anything that cannot be seen or felt is nor metaken-maneh or any other melacha. Of course if one pushes buttons or has a model in which the results are shown immediately on the watch then it would be forbidden. The assumption is that nothing on the watch indicates that it is recording. Rosen indicated to me that he has written all this but I do not at present have his teshuva. The general approach of tzomet is that (almost) all their products are meant for special individuals etc, sick, police, doctors etc when needed. Though they don't manufacturer a smart watch the same principles hold. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:51:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:51:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us from my question.) My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can remember. But the hagada seems to say more. It does not merely tell what the proper response should be, but it also seems to direct that response to specific responder(s). I am referring to the hagada's words, "v'af atah". What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! Am I totally off track? Anyone see my question? Does anyone have a translation or perush that doesn't ignore the word "af"? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB: > > Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger > (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) > G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and > tragedy. > > 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO > 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil > 3. God exists > > First proposal. Therefore > 4. There is no evil > > But observation will tell you: > 5. There is evil > > We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. > (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually once started a thread here called ?What can?t God do??. Some examples: Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? Can God lie? I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. > (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a > prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil > to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, God, have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God really want that? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:04:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:04:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5714F781.9020002@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:51 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: > > (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem > (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar > (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh > (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved > > (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us > from my question.) I will, however, point out that translating it "knock out", or as any kind of blow, is completely ignorant. There is simply no way that it can mean that. So where does this stupid idea come from? It *could* come from some amhoretz confusing it with "hakei", hei kaf hei, meaning to hit. But I think it's more likely to come from Yiddish, a language the baal hagada never even heard of, and the phrase "hack ois", or in English "hack out". > My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply > have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that > would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can > remember. What specific wording are you suggesting instead of the ones the baal hagadah uses? > What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should > hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument > being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh > his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! > > Am I totally off track? I think so. How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him. -- 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 Mon Apr 18 08:09:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:09:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: What is the status of cooking kitniyot in a pot on Pesach (for ashkenazim). Outside of Israel this is relevant only for small children, sick etc. In Israel it is relevant this year as to whether one can cook kitniyot on the 7th day of Pesach for the immediate following shabbat. All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the pot even for use the following year ! He further claims that this is the standard custom. I have seen that RHS allows use the same day. Does anyone know of others who require actually kashering the pot even if it won't be used until Pesach next year. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:04:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: I asked why the Hagada uses the words "v'af atah" to introduce the answer to the rasha. R' Zev Sero responded: > How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked > son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that > your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say > something harsh to him. Interesting thought. But if so, then for the other OOPS! I hadn't noticed that these exact same words introduce the Hagada's answer to the chacham. And rightly so - Your child is asking a detailed question, and you too should respond with a detailed answer. My bad. Thanks! But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? (The She'eino Yodea Lish'ol never asks anything at all, so there is no congruency to invoke RZS's suggestion.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:14:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:14:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57156A61.2000800@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:04 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > > But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: > > 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? > 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? > 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? Because he simply quotes the pasuk. In the cases of the first two sons he (for some reason) davka *doesn't* quote the pasuk's response (Avadim Hayinu to the chacham and Zevach Pesach Hu to the rasha), but makes one up for the chacham, and borrows the she'eino yodea lish'ol's answer for the rasha. For the second two sons he simply quotes the pesukim verbatim. -- 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 Tue Apr 19 13:34:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:34:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to others subunits (e.g. ethnic). Any good actuary (or even a poor one) can tell you correlation doesn't prove causation, but it does provide some thoughts on some interesting questions (e.g. why the switch to ethnic minhagim from geographic ones?). 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 01:07:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:07:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: a story from years ago A friend of mine lived near RMF on the lower east side. One year RMF invited him for seder. However the friend didn't eat gebrochs but was too polite to tell RMF that he couldn't come because he was more machmir and so made up some excuse. Same thing happened the next year. The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat at my seder. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 05:17:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:17:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special Message-ID: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Pesach is a Yom Tov of diverse moods. The tragic and heroic, the mournful and hopeful, the somber and sentimental ? strangely commingled and reflected in the services and rituals. One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l?zecher aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b?Av. Interestingly, the first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b?Av. So as Pesach begins Friday evening this year (and last), so too, Tisha b?Av (actual date) begins Friday evening this year (and last). At our seder, we read about the Four Children (quite different from each other, but a portion of each of the sons in all of us). On Pesach we usher in the solemn days of Sefirah, which cast a spell upon the mirthful spirit of this Yom Tov and which recalls the ill-fated Bar Kochba rebellion with its gloomy aftermath; and on the same night, we open the door for Eliyahu HaNavi, the harbinger of glad tidings. On the day we recite Yizkor (with sad overtones), we recite Hallel (quite the opposite). On the day when we read the Haftorah of the ?Valley of the Dry Bones,? and we ask with the prophet: ?Son of man, can these bones live?? (Ezek. 37); this very same day, we read Shir Hashirim, the song of youth and of hope. When we think of all the trouble, travail, terrorism in the world and some of the trials and tribulations in our own lives, we can drink four cups of wine and temporarily forget our troubles. May your present be better than your past and not as good as your future! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:42:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:42:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special In-Reply-To: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> References: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Message-ID: <20160420154253.GA21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:17:29AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l'zecher : aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b'Av. Interestingly, the : first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b'Av. The iqar is to have two cooked foods. Egg and shankbone is a layer on top of that. Judging from the Ari's lining up the items on the ke'arah with the 10 sefiros, wre are using the egg as the cooked food in memory of the chagigah, and the bone to regall the qorban pesach. One could link that to mourning, that we are mourning the real seder, complete with qorban, as we sit down to our best-we-can-do one. And we did lose the ability to make a qorban pesach on 9 beAv. But the egg isn't really about aveilus directly. 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 Wed Apr 20 08:47:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:47:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:07:55AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly : asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the : real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 : guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said : now you can eat at my seder. I know also the IM permits Ashkenazim who daven "Sfard" to switch back to Ashkenaz (even over 150 years after the family first switched to). But I didn't think he was in general a believer in the idea that Litvisher minhagim were superior to other East European ones. Just that davening was differenct because it's a switch back to the earlier nusach. So what's going on here? Why would he encourage someone to quit the minhag of gebrochts? (For weaker grounds than usually argued against qitnios.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:57:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:57:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> References: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> I can't answer for sure but my guess would be that RMF felt that one could quit gebrochs for a sufficiently good reason and he felt that this was a good reason. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 20:17:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos References: Message-ID: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> R? AM: What about an ordinary old-fashioned film camera? Without a flash, there's nothing electrical about it. In fact, when one presses the shutter, nothing at all happens except that some chemical reactions occur in the film. Even after Shabbos, there is no visible change to the film, until after it has undergone some specific chemical treatment. Yet I've never seen a shomer shabbos person use such a camera on Shabbos, nor have I ever hear it suggested that it might only be d'rabanan. ------------------ Old MYG: That?s a great question, I think, about the film camera. I agree that it makes sense that it should be only a d?rabanan, except for Polaroid. And the d?rabanan may well be that since its entire purpose is to be in service to that Kesivah, it?s a Kli She?melachto L?issur, and therefore muktzah. But if that?s so, then the heteirim of muktzah would therefore apply, like tiltul min hatzad, and shvus d?shvus, l?tzorech gufo, and so on? After reading through it, I still don?t see any reason to prohibit it besides for Muktzah? Rabbi Bleich at this link (http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%203/Survey%20of%20Recent.pdf) quotes R? SZA that it?s ?mistaver? that taking a film photo is assur m?drabanan. Rabbi Bleich himself is not so impressed with that argument. ----------------------------- New MYG: I thought of another issur ? taking a photo with a film camera is Hachanah, because you?re only taking it for the result that you will get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d?oraysa. KT and CKVS, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:50:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:41:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the harsh attack. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:32:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:32:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> References: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160421193255.GA9816@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:17:10PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I thought of another issur -- taking a photo with a film camera is : Hachanah, because you're only taking it for the result that you will : get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d'oraysa. Return back to nidon didan (from the subject line)... A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the same reasoning would apply. But many other such devices can be used as a digital watch on Shabbos. So carrying it around -- even if you want the step tracking -- is not ONLY for the tracking. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:50:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:50:56PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to : make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not : a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. Actually, for RMF in particular, I find that hard to imagine. The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they were in error, he does advocate a more limited form -- cooking dishes from boiled matzah because the result may be confused with recipes that produce chameitz. The Keneses haGedolah (17th cent) confirms the Raavan's fears with a story of it actually happening. Someone made fish "breaded" with matzah meal, and the neighbor mistakenly learned from it that it was okay to fry fish in actual flour. Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after the Besh"t -- there are stories about the Baal Shem Tov eating keneidelach on Pesach, the Magid of Mezritch did not eat gebrochts. The SA haRav (discussed here annually) says that the change was due to a change in how we make matzah. This is the same generation in which kneading time was counted toward the mil, and therefore the whole process got more rushed. Until then, the chance of umixed flour remaining on/in the dough was unrealistic. I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thing cracker matzos; it would only apply to the Rama's only less than a tefach matzah. So here you have two people writing at close to the same time, one explaing why the minhag recently started, the other assuming the minhag is old and no longer applicable to the current umdena. But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer applicable. 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 Thu Apr 21 13:04:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:04:14 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: between gebroks and kitniyos, with our modern eye could we say one is more justified or were both products of the time. eg gebroks was invented in altererebe's time as a reaction to the nexus of thick matzos with incompetent bakers. kitniyos a reaction to legume-flour nexus . today , almost all matzos are either mechanized or learnedly baked; and only thin matzos made in ashkenazi land [unless you order softmatza.com]. and though legume flours like chickpea are extant, the communities that primarily use them never accepted this new minhag. it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them off... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 19:50:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on > Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal > Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. > I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the > pot even for use the following year ! Last week, in the thread "Ta'am kitniyos", I wrote that Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this, yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. So I will now rephrase the question that I had asked there: RET referred here to "seforim". Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this question in writing, and gives his reasoning. (My wild guess is that if such a source can be found, it is less likely to be in the context of baby food, and more likely to be in the context of an Ashkenazi who was invited to eat at a Sephardi home on Pesach.) Anyone know of such seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 13:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:50:07 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2016 5:50 AM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they > were in error, he does advocate a more limited form ... > Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after > the Besh"t... The SA haRav... > I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. > Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that > gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thin cracker matzos... > But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world > used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which > case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer > applicable. I don't see how any of these considerations suggest that Gebrochts is a Minhag that requires Hatarah. In fact I think it more than likely they reflect otherwise. The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are hardly substantial. And if there is any substance to the reason being related to the change in the way Matza is made, well then being so late, it can hardly be considered a binding Minhag. And one opinion is not adequate to propel activity to the point of being a binding Minhag, especially when it is so poorly justified. BTW it is astonishing that Matza of 10mm thickness be considered edible when baked to the point of being hard. You would need a hammer and cold chisel to break it. It makes no sense. Such Matza would only be edible if it was baked soft. Re the ShTeshuvah, he limits the problem to soft Matza, which is GRATED on a RibAysen (and explains that the problem no longer exists due to changes to the Matza used for making meal being baked hard and describe CRUSHING it) so it must have been soft. Soft Matza that is whole can be easily evaluated to determine if it is fully baked. Once it is grated however, that becomes impossible. The problem is compounded when you remember that probably the most important quality sought by the balabusta is that it be as white as possible so the risk of being under baked is all the greater. There was not ever a concern that flour remained in the Matza and that might become Chamets. But even if it did it can not become Chamets since it has been heated. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 09:11:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160422161136.GA4937@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:04:14PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them : off... An earlier question... Given our lack of minhag hamaqom, do we want to cast minhag avos off? What ties us to community if we're not connecting "laterally" to our contemporaries if not our connection to the past? Pesach is so experiential and so nostalgia driven, perhaps we should harbor / develop enough attachment to minhag avos (mimeticism) for that alone to motivate keeping qitniyos. :-)|,|ii! (And a special :-)|,ii to any Granikim out there!) -Micha PS: Yes, I do appreciate the irony that in a post about preserving minhag avos, I do a "shout out" to those who use 2 matzos at their seder. Even though most of them are doing so in a choice of textualism over mimeticism. -- 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 Fri Apr 22 09:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 06:50:07AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are : hardly substantial. The stories about the Besht are that he DID eat gebrochts. This isin contrast to the SA haRav who was firmly against. And the SA haRav (shu"T #6 in the bac of vol 6) IS substantial. See last year's BTW, while I fint this hard to accept as RMF's pesaq, R Eli Turkel told us last year that RSZA does hold as per the story about RMF: > In Halichos Shlomo (p90) it states explicitly that one can change his > custom and eat gebrochs after hatart nedarim. However, this should be done > only if there is a good reason (tzorach chashuv) for the change. Thus, for > a chatan he would allow the hatarat nedarim if keeping bebrochs would cause > family difficulties. And R Yisrael Herczeg wrote: > ... I just looked over the notes of the droshoh Rav Yitzchok > Mordechai HaKohen Rubin gave last Shabbos. He said that Rav Elyashiv > allowed for hataras neder on gebrochts. He also mentioned that Rav Chaim > Kanyevski said that the Steipler was matir neder on gebrochts for someone > who had difficulty eating matzah unless it was softened with liquid. He > added that Rav Chaim Greineman said that the Chazon Ish told him that the > Steipler's heter was invalid. And yet in his own life: > I asked Rav Elyashiv z"l if I could be matir neder on gebrokts and he told > me I could not. >From R/Prof Y Levine: > A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud > of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in > the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating > gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar > Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: > The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one > who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to > eating Gebrokts. > It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may > rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. > Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when > Matzohs were thick Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST that the minhag refers to a kind of matzah most of you do not eat. I have a few lb from the Syrian community in Flatbush, in addition to the usual. So if I had the minhag of nisht gebrochts, RYSE might still have told me to limit my hataras nedarim and continue not eating Syrian-style matzos with liquids. IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for reasons similar to the RYSE report. :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 14:11:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding hachanah, R' Micha Berger wrote: > A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the > same reasoning would apply. True, but hachana is a problem only if specific actions are taken to do that preparation. For example, washing one's hands over a sink full of dirty dishes is okay, even if one likes the idea that the dishes will get wet, provided that he'd be washing his hands there anyway, even if the sink was empty. So too for the Fitbit, which is already attached to whatever, and one is not doing any specific action for the Fitbit. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 24 04:00:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:00:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says > he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the > minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST ... > IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my > opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. > And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for > reasons similar to the RYSE report. May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. The closest true argument was documented by the ShTeshuvah who clearly related the problem to the type of Matza baked to be used for Gebrochts - it was at risk of not being properly baked [presumably because they were trying to keep it as white a possible] and being Chamets in the first place - it actually had nothing to do with the Matza Meal becoming wet. And that problem was solved by modifying the Matza baked for meal to be baked hard. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 15:27:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim Message-ID: In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: shabasos limnucha moadim l'simcha chagim uzmanim l'sason I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are, especially as opposed to the other three. But what precisely distinguishes the other three from each other? My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they the same in regards to Sason? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 12:58:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:58:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> An Areivim exchange... On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08pm IDT, R `Eli Turkel wrote: > what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:31pm +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes : from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. ... Doesn't this just beg the question? I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 2nd day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 18:22:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:22:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Areivim, Lisa Liel wrote: >> On Areivim R `Eli Turkel wrote: >>> what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts >> According to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. > I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah > of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw > from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? Who says he *did* associate lions with melucha? The pesukim don't make such an association. Unkelus does make that connection, translating "gur aryeh Yehudah" as a prophecy that royalty will come to Yehudah, but even there Rashi explains that this means that a young David will become a mighty king, just as a lion cub becomes a mighty beast. So the lions there are not really a symbol of royalty but of might; and Unkelus's treatment of the rest of the pasuk seems to confirm that. But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. -- 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 Apr 27 00:50:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:50:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> The best source is RYZA halichot shlomo volume on moadim - Pesach page 350 (shin-mem) He pasjens that (like this year) one can cook kitniyot on friday for shabbat assuming there are people in the neighborhood who eat kitniyot (ie sefardim) and on shabbat one can eat foods that has in them chametz derabban. One should be machmir only on chametz deoraisa. The notes below go into detailed reasons. I didnt see anything about the dishes. but as mentioned he just casually says one can cook the kitniyot. Rav Rimon in his hagadah (ie the last few years) also allows cooking kitniyot for the last shabbat after pesach Though it isnt a sefer the email sent out of ROY's piskei halachot also allow cooking kitniyot on friday for shabbat for ashkenazim again using the reasoning that sefardim can eat the kitniyot on Pesach itself (he quotes the shut of RSZA minchat shlomo tenina end of siman 17). He paskens that it is preferable to use special pots -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 00:56:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:56:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RMF and gebrocha Message-ID: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebrochts According to Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik of Vitebsk, the custom originated with Dov Ber of Mezeritch .[2] (This appears, for example, in Shulchan Aruch HaRav , c. 1800.) In fact, the members of some nineteenth century Lithuanian Jewish communities deliberately ate gebrochts to demonstrate the permissibility of this practice.[*citation needed *] Both the Vilna Gaon [3] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ruled that there is no reason to avoid eating gebrochts. (no source given) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 05:03:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:03:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Changes in Shmoneh Esreh Message-ID: Yesterday, as I was davening mincha, I found myself working hard to keep my eyes in the siddur, lest I make one of the mistakes that I'd have to repeat Shmoneh Esreh for. It occurred to me that in the course of the year, there are many minor changes which are *not* m'akev the tefila, such as Anenu, Al Hanisim, and the constant choice between Sim Shalom and Shalom Rav. But it seems to me that only four of those are so critical that - depending on circumstances - they can be m'akev one's Shmoneh Esreh: Morid Hageshem or omitting it HaMelech Hakadosh vs. HaE-l Hakadosh Tal Umatar Yaaleh V'yavo The chidush that came to me suddenly is that of these four changes, *three* of them apply on Chol Hamoed Pesach. There are three parts of the tefilah that we must get right, because messing up *any* of those three requires us to repeat the Shmoneh Esreh from scratch. This seems to be unique. Is there another part of the year where even two difference changes are me'akev? In Eretz Yisrael, Tal Umatar begins only two weeks after Geshem, but in Chu"l, I don't think there's ever a situation where even two of those apply at the same time. Even on Aseres Y'mei Teshuva, which has six changes (Zachrenu, Mi Kamocha, HaMelech Hakadosh, HaMelech Hamishpat, U'chsov, B'sefer), only one of them is critical. I'm not sure if there is any special significance to all this. I just wanted to point it out in case it might help others pay more attention and not forget the changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 08:10:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:10:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73622773-BB32-4FA9-B6ED-CFF33EF6C253@optimum.net> RMGR: > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. > I would have thought just the reverse. If there?s a halachic foundation all it requires is a psak. When the behavior is extra-halachic we may require hataras nedarim. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 09:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:12:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:06:02AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) ... :> We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. :> (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO : This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually : once started a thread here called "What can't God do?". Some examples: : Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? : Can God lie? The Moreh discusses both points. 1- Omnipotence is really a statement that nothing lies beyond his Potency than insisting He posesses an infinite amount of power. 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless nonsense clauses. The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Why? It would be pure Tov, not Chesed. : Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. Thus the idea I labeled #1 above from the Moreh, and his via negativa. R' Moshe Taqu infamously takes the opposite approach -- it would be presumptuous to define G-d even to the extent of insisting that we must limit ourselves to defining what He Isn't. RMT therefore insists we must accept the descriptions in Tanakh uncritically. (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, one way or the other.) :> (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a :> prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil :> to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. : Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general : problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, : God, : have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods : may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. : So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God : really want that? Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congential birth defects and other such natural evils. This could be one element in a broader answer. And that was sort of my point... By ignoring the whole subject of theodicy, Dr Haslanger misses the main point she would need to refute. As an aside, a central part of RYBS's hashkafah is that much of free will is choosing between goods that are in dialecitcal tension. More often than a pure good vs evil choice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? the tragic which :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427170529.GB29457@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:41:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah wrote: : Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you : should also say something harsh to him : : This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the : harsh attack. Maybe it's true by definition. A rasha is someone who is beyond listening. And the child ready to hear the soft response isn't a rasha. I saw someone suggest haqheih here is meant in the sense of morbid craving, not blunting. As in Y-mi Shevi'is 4:6 (vilna 12a) "Amar Rabbi Avun: derekh haqeihus okhelin oso". And shinav -- in the sense of veshinantam. In which case, you have the pretty idea: Make him crave his studies. But it doesn't work. "Haqhei es shinav" is an idiom that is used elsewhere by Chazal, such as Sotah 49a (2x). (There is also "anavim qeihos" as unripe or sour grapes in Avos 4:20, but that may just be a third usage.) But since haqhei es shinav is an idiom, maybe the idiomatic meaning is far milder than a literal translation. Like "shut him up". (Edginess of my translation intentional, to relay the aggressiveness implied by the idiom.) :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:21:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:21:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> On 04/27/2016 12:12 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore > part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. > But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, > any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless > nonsense clauses. > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. CS Lewis agreed with the Rambam. See my .sig Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach bigvul". The purpose of creation, Chabad says, and of all our avodah, is to make Him a "dira batachtonim", which is a logical impossibility. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 13:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed : >create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", : and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach : bigvul".... Nowadays there are multiple logics. Some are just mathematical playthings, but many are used in the real world. (The two I somewhat know are fuzzy logic, used in many problems like thermostats, to represent predicates like "hot" which has varying degrees of truth; and quantum logic, used in subatomic physics.) Speaking of non-classical logics , I heard RYBS discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. Because RYBS's topic was how bein hashemashos is actually both days at once. This explains why an esrog used one day is assur BHS because it's the same day and then assur the next day because it was also BHS -- the start of that day. But the notion of noone special logic makes the Rambam's idea that logic is part of Truth and thus of His Essence much harder to support. You would have to go meta, and speak of the usability of various logics in general. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 14:46:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:46:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name>,<20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> > > Speaking of non-classical logics > , I heard RYBS > discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which > he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows > for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that > halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. ---------------------- I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law of the excluded middle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle Moadim lsimcha 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 Apr 27 18:35:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:35:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: I had asked: > Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many > publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that > kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. > But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this > question in writing, and gives his reasoning. Yes! "Medical Halachah for Everyone" [1980, Feldheim] by Abraham S. Abraham MD, page 82, gives a specific procedure for an Ashkenazi who is suffering from diarrhea and needs to eat rice on Pesach, and then writes: > Separate utensils must be used for cooking and eating such foods on Pesach. His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf Hachayim). Then, he discusses at length whether or not a (Ashkenazi) guest needs to worry if his (Sefardi) host used those keilim in the past 24 hours, and several related situations. HOWEVER -- I am shocked by how different this halacha appears in Dr Abraham's book, and in the sefer he cites. I concede that the Kaf Hachayim does cite several problems that the Ashkenazi should be concerned with, and I concede that Dr Abraham's procedure safeguards against them all. But it also conjures up additional problems that the Kaf Hachayim was NOT worried about. Some might say that I am being too hard on a "kitzur sefer" that tries to service the layman by packing a lot of information into a few pages. I say: On the contrary! His book could have been two words shorter if he had left out the words "and eating". If the kli rishon is okay after 24 hours, I would imagine that the kli sheni is okay even sooner. Oh - here's another thing: The Kaf Hachayim was talking about a *healthy* Ashkenazi who eats from Sefardi keilim. I think that if Dr Abraham is going to apply those halachos to an Ashkenazi *choleh*, maybe he should cite a posek on it. Caveat lector! Check the sources whenever you can! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:20:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > > > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. > > He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any > of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf > Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the beginning of the first volume? Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:29:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Old Audio Tapes Message-ID: <57581d198d4c45e5863bdf9e300d7dac@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Our shul is getting rid of a large number of old shiurim on audio cassettes and CD's. Does anyone know of any digitization projects that might be interested before they are disposed of? Kol Tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 09:26:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:26:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] I shall sing to Hashem for He is exalted above the arrogant Message-ID: <1461860967014.47103@stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/gmsnkks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 30 12:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:29:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Matzik l'rabim Message-ID: <5725078F.7070109@zahav.net.il> Rav Asher Weiss discusses a case in which a small number of graves are found in a place that is not designated to be a beit qevarot. This piece of land is slated for a large construction project, which would in all likelihood mean damaging the graves. He discusses various reasons for moving (or not moving) the graves. One of the ideas that he brings up is "matziq et harabim" (damage to the public). He concludes that this reason wouldn't apply here; the claim "matziq et harabim" can be used to permit moving graves only if the graves cause teumah to kohenim. Why would forcing kohenim to take a different path (possibly a very small detour) be sufficient reason to move graves but a major building project not? PS: For a variety of other reasons, RAW permitted moving the graves. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:24:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 19:24:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: in response to David Riceman's suggestion - extra-halachic behaviour is likely to require Hatarah whilst those that have a Halachic foundation require a Pesak consider this: if there is no Halachic foundation for a Minhag then it will never require Hatarah, it is an error. The custom to sniff snuff in Shule on Shabbos can never gain status of a Minhag that requires Hatarah if there is some Halachic foundation then notwithstanding it not being recognised as binding Halacha, if it is adopted as a custom it may well require Hatarah if one wishes to abandon the custom Therefore since we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation of there being a risk that wet Matzos may become Chamets, the Minhag of Gebrochts is no different to the Paroches being blue or maroon and suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 08:34:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 11:34:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: I have a question about an Old French word that appears in a Rashi. I hope that someone on the list is fairly fluent in French, or has access to such a person. But first, an introduction... It is not unusual for an English-speaker to refer to Rosh Hashana as the "New Year", or to Yom Kippur as the "Day of Atonement". These are legitimate translations, and it is clear to me that they are used in certain circles. In contrast, the name of Chanuka is generally not translated; it is transliterated or adapted into English as Chanukkah or Hanuka or something similar, but translations like "Festival of Dedication" (and "Festival of Lights", which isn't really a translation at all) are much rarer. But this post is not about those holidays; it is about the one we just completed. I have long thought that the English language was unique, in that we have a translation for the name Pesach, namely "Passover". I concede that although we might perceive of "Passover" as a basic word of simple English, it was actually coined by William Tyndale in the early 1500s, for the specific purpose of translating the root "pesach" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible#Legacy). Be that as it may, it *IS* an easily-understood term for any English-speaker, most especially in the contexts of Shmos 12:11-13: "They will eat the Passover offering... and I will pass over them..." and Shmos 12:27: ?It is the Passover offering, to G-d Who passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt..." I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the focus on the experiential story. But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:16:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:16:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 11:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 20:13:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> On 4/27/2016 7:09 PM, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: > I don't know on what basis the digests say that you need separate kelim > for kitniyos. The taam of kitniyos that is absorbed into the pot in > which it was cooked is automatically batel. I think it's just recommended > for a heker, so you'll remember not to eat kitniyos yourself, and not > really necessary at all. > And if you know before Pesach that you're going to cook kitniyos for > next Shabbos, you'll leave it out of the chometz cupboard. I read various guides about this Shabbat. To sum up the issues involved: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. 2) Does the eiruv tavshilin cover cooking kitniyot? Since you would be cooking the rice/beans when they are assur to you, maybe teh ET doesn't cover it. However according to Rav Shlomo Zalman, if one lives in a place in which there are Sefardim, the theoretical possibility that a Sefardi person would stop over is enough. 3) Checking the kitniyot: One has to check the kitniyot for chameitz. I personally bought Kitov rice that had been checked twice and only a third check was required. Why they didn't check it a third time, I don't know. 4) Anything cold (eg chummus) isn't a problem at all. 5) Addendum: This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issues. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:45:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 12:45:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Simon Montagu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < >> He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any >> of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf >> Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the > beginning of the first volume? > > Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two > possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera > Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is > the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! Hazon Ovadiah on the Haggada (note 8 on page 55 of the 5739 edition) brings some of the same sources, without so many rashei teivot: Shu"t Zera Emet helek 3 (helek Orah Hayyim siman 48) http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=742&st=&pgnum=122 Hukkat Hapesah siman 453 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7855&st=&pgnum=172 But as far as I can tell none of the sources are directly addressing the question of an Ashkenazi cooking kitniot in his own house, as opposed to being invited to a Sephardi. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 14:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 17:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: On Areivim, in the thread "kitniyot", R' Ben Waxman wrote: > It doesn't make sense to me that the only holiday in which > the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor has become so > divisive that people would consider not eating with family. My guess is that "the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor" is a reference to how the Korban Pesach must be eaten. I certainly can't argue with that, but there is much more to this story. The Pesach 5776 issue of YU's "Torah To-Go" has an article titled " Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach" (the url is too long; just google the title and you'll find it) by Rabbi Yona Reiss, who writes: > The late Belzer Rebbe (Rav Aharon Rokeach zt"l) brings a > different source for the custom of not eating in others' > homes on Pesach, noting that only with respect to Shavuot > and Sukkot does the Torah mention the notion of rejoicing > together with others (Devorim 16:11, 16:14), but not with > respect to Pesach. Therefore the scriptural implication > is that on Pesach there may be a basis for parties to > refrain from joining each other for their meals. BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 19:38:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:38:35 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> `On the matter of Gebrochts, R?MG Rabi wrote in Issue 43 > Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to > make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not > a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. > > RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on > the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. > and in Issue 44 > May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a > custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - > as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. Mori V?Rabbi R? Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to eat soft matzot. The Ramah quotes the minhag that the matzos should be thinner than an etzba ...the soft matzos are thinner just like what color you have on the poroches is not a minhag, it is a matter of taste. Not every little sneeze is considered a minhag. However, if a person descends from chassidishe families and they have a minhag not to eat gebrokts *unless someone should pasken for him that this is a minhag shtus or a minhag b'taus, it would not even help to make a Hatoras nidorim*. Hatoras nidorim for a minhag only works if it is a *personal* minhag. The baal ha'neder has to request from the beis din the ha'tora. *If an entire community has a minhag, you have to get the entire kehilla to be matir the neder. One member of the community cannot be matir the neder on his own*. Just like if a person decides that he does not want to wait six hours between milchig and fleishig, he cannot be matir the neder, *he* is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years ago when the matzohs were much thicker. The concept of dovor sh'bminyan, etc. that even if one lives in a generation when the reason for the takanah no longer applies, the takanah is still binding, only applied to takonos d'rabbonon and *does not apply to minhogim*. The Ramah in his teshuvos writes like this and rashi in the first perek in Beitza writes the same. If I am not mistaken, I think the very last teshuva in Achiezer volume 3 by r. chaim ozer writes the same.? I conclude that we should be much more careful before attempting to extrapolate from Poskim of the enormous stature of Mori V?Rabbi. Dr. Isaac Balbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 22:01:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:01:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Best, Meir G. Rabi On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah > wrote: > : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the > illustration > : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in > force > : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] > > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza > on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for > me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable > hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:28:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:28:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically. And after the kitniyos were cooked in it the issur is automatically batel; the taam of kitniyos in the walls is surely less than 50%! -- 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 Sun May 1 21:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5726D8FF.6020709@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 05:48 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this > way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is > especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. I believe it got started because on Pesach there are so many different standards that it's often difficult to be sure that this is the case. Even if the host has more chumros than the guest, they may be different ones, and there will be something the guest doesn't eat and the host does. Detailed inquiry about these matters may be embarrassing. If the guest is certain that the host's standards are as strict or stricter than his own in all matters, then AFAIK the minhag doesn't apply. -- 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 Mon May 2 03:42:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160502104240.GB10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:01:51PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza : > on Pesach.... :> no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Well it doesn't need to be. Topics drift. However, I would ask whether RHS would compare Ashkenazi matzah styles to fashion rather than minhag if he could not prove there was a time when Ashkenazim too used soft matzos. You were using his idea as an example of minhag requiring a halachic foundation, that the risk gebrochts avoids be a real one. I don't see that. (It would also do wonders to qitniyos if that question were admissible.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:48:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:38:35PM +1000, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Mori V'Rabbi R' Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) : "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to : eat soft matzot.... : he is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to : say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years : ago when the matzohs were much thicker...." Why quote RTG when the Pischei Teshuvah said it first? OTOH, in the same generation, the SA haRav says that gebrochts only makes sense *after* we started counting kneading time toward the 18 min. And as a pragmatic matter, they both were very likely part of the same change in matzah-making norms. (If you have less time to bake matzos now that kneading ate up some of the time, you need thinner matzos.) I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old could the minhag have been? And if so, could RTG's theory be correct even in our day? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:51:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:51:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 05:12:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:12:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I saw somewhere that ein veatlim issur lechatchila doesnt apply to minhagim. Question: can one cook gebrochs on the 7th day of Pesach for the 8th day (for those who dont eat gebrochs 7 days). This was particularly relevant this year when the 8th day was shabbat. --------------------------------- On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 04:52:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57273F64.2010405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:51 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. > > : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're > : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste > : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... > > To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing > something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior > reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. This should be obvious, because if it were not so then it would always be forbidden to cook kitniyos, or anything else that is batel berov, even in keilim designated for this. -- 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 Mon May 2 04:57:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572740B0.9050306@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:48 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's > theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not > causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because > the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- > their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is > no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old > could the minhag have been? It wasn't even a generational change. The Alter Rebbe says it was only "these last twenty years or more", i.e. within his own memory. -- 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 Mon May 2 07:02:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 10:02:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:12 AM 5/2/2016, R. Akiva Miller wrote: >BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a >question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have >legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 07:28:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 08:28:08 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Old French In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at May 2, 2016 03:12:46 am Message-ID: <14621956880.190dB.12358@m5.shachter> > I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to > have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According > to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in > French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be > transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than > Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when > they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on > an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the > focus on the experiential story. > But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After > explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes > (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in > ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for > Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." The French word for "step" is "pas". In Rashi's time the 's' was pronounced. That gives you the first two consonants of the p-s-x root. The third consonant is an aspirate which, although it never drops out in inflected forms like the h does, might still be considered dispensible by an aspirational (sorry, I couldn't resist) etymologist willing to cut corners. It is a bogus albeit tempting etymology, like the ones you see in Hirsch. > A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been > inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but > that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the > question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How > do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? > And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? I can't tell you how the French of Rashi's time referred to Pesax. There are no French translations of the Hebrew Scriptures dating to then. The French Jews probably said "Pesach". That's what Yiddish speakers say today and I have no reason to think that their ancestors did any differently. French Jews nowadays -- who speak, by and large, French, although there are some who speak Arabic among themselves -- also say "Pesach", usually. Sometimes they say "Paque" (circumflex accent on the 'a' deliberately omitted because the Avodah digest software chokes on it, which is unfortunate, because the circumflex, which always indicates a missing 's', would be highly informative if you could see it), which is the correct French word, but it is rare for them to do so. I don't like saying "Paque" because it is also the French word for "Easter" and thus evokes a disagreeable sense of linguistic imperialism, even though the imperialism is almost certainly operating in the other direction here, I would think -- taking a Hirschian risk here, but there are worse people to emulate -- that the French word for "Easter" obviously comes from p-s-x. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:26:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:26:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tenets of faith Message-ID: > (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R > Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes > that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT > actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, > one way or the other.) Raavad : Born : 1125, Narbonne, France Died : 1198, Vauvert, France R, Moshe ben Chasdai Taku: 1250-1290 CE So Raavad couldn't have referred to R Taku -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 08:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57276FE3.4040104@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 08:12 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. Why does it need to be hefsed merubeh. Mechiras chometz is 100% valid, and everyone is entitled to rely on it no matter how easy it would be not to. If people want to be machmir for themselves that's very nice but they have no right to expect other people to follow their crazy chumros, any more than they follow those of other people. > OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. > Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the > supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? It seems to me that this attitude rests on a fujndamental amhoratzus: the idea that chametz she'avar alav hapesach is an inherent issur, an issur cheftza, so that if you hold for some reason that mechiras chometz is somehow flawed then you must hold that to the same extent the food sold is tainted. But chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a kenas on the owner for deliberately or negligently transgressing Bal Yera'eh Uval Yimatzei. Therefore even if you don't wish to rely on mechiras chametz, and destroy all your own chametz rather than sell it, the shopkeeper is not obligated to share your crazy chumra, and when he sold his chametz you must admit that he did so beheter gamur. If so, he doesn't deserve a kenas, so his chametz remains permitted even to you. -- 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 Mon May 2 10:03:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:03:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X isn't good enough". Ben On 5/2/2016 2:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store > can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are > communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these > contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel > its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:35:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim Message-ID: R Isaac, Please provide the references for the Shut Ramah and the Rashi in the first Perek Beitza. As for the Achiezer, that quite clearly supports the assertion that ONLY if the practice of not being MeNaker the hind-quarters is associated with a Halacha can it have any sort of binding power. It is truly confounding to see some people asserting the views of various Rabbanim without ever finding it necessary to actually do more than tell a story or tell us that the Posek said "it" to a friend or "it" was heard directly. For example we just had someone quote RHS saying a Halacha from the Rama, which the Rama does NOT say - this seriously undermines the credibility. Neither should we accept the report that RHS Paskened that those who do not eat Gebrochts require a Pesak that it is a Shtus because Hatarah does not work since a community has followed this practice, and the entire kehilla requires Hatarah. That's like an entire Kehilla following the practice of using royal blue for the Paroches. Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation, is a Dovor ShaBeMinyan, is pretty close to fantasy. Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from stories and hearsay from Poskim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:53:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502165329.GE14957@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:29AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from : stories and hearsay from Poskim. Are you REALLY saying that RIB should not accept an answer he personally received from his own rebbe? Or that we shouldn't accept that he can quote that answer verbatum, albeit with a "(emphasis is mine)"? If that's not sufficient evidence of a person's position, no quote on the list works, and we might as well shut down. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 10:37:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:37:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502173731.GF14957@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:12:10PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can : sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that : don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? Don't buy all chameitz that has been sold, or all chameitz that was "sold" by a store than then proceeded to leave it on the shelves and sell individually over Pesach? The latter is the nearest I've seen in my experience to such communities. After all, it's more ready to conclude that the initial sale of all chameitz was a meaningless asmachta, and not a real sale than it is to conclude the storeowners were selling someone else's merchandise and stealing the profits. But if you mean that people aren't supposed to buy properly sold chameitz, yes that makes no sense -- the storeowner still suffers a hefsed merubah, just days later. In any case, I do not think we still hold that mechiras chameitz requires the hefsed to be merubah. OTOH, it's more than merely a "crazy chumerah", as Zev puts it. According to the Bach (OC 448 "ve'im") mechiras chameitz of the sort where nothing actually is moved to space the nakhri already owns was originally promulgated as a widespread practice specifically for "yayin saraf" dealers, and only because they can't move their full merchandise. (The actual mechanism is in the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6.) Resisting growth of a heter to include boxes we could just throw into the trunk of our car is quite different than "crazy chumerah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:24:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:24:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" mindset). Ben On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus > standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the > would-be guest"? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 01:03 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the > custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after > Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X > isn't good enough". 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how silly you think their reason. 2. As far as I'm concerned the "baked after Pesach" stickers are merely an indication that the product is fresh. -- 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 Mon May 2 12:21:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:21:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> <57279663.5050102@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727A8CE.4040308@zahav.net.il> From: Eli Turkel via Areivim > The following is probably mostly for Israel MO and based on observations > and not statistics > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article by > a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see below) may apply). The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev Shabbat: 1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). 2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza 3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is practiced). So what is the difference in this case? Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? On 5/2/2016 8:03 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how > silly you think their reason. Of course you can't. However, community leaders can decide what message to transmit. I heard Rav Amar state in the strongest terms that there is no benefit to buying chameitz products from a non-Jew (instead of from a Jew who sold his chameitz). He also discouraged looking for the "baked after Pesach" label. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:05:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:05:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! -- 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 Mon May 2 11:21:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279A8F.5020203@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 02:24 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus >> standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >> would-be guest"? > In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this > chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they > didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate > their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at > least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are > (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" > mindset). 1. There's a lot more to standards, especially on Pesach, than which hechsherim one trusts. You might trust more hechsherim than your relatives do, but not use some product from *any* hechsher that they do use, or have some practise at home that they don't. 2. If you are indeed sure that you are not more machmir than them, then the custom of not mixing would not apply in that specific case. The minhag is subject to the guest's discretion, not the host's; all it demands of the hosts is not to take offence. -- 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 Mon May 2 11:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 04:58:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R'MG Rabi has incorrectly assumed that I heard or similar, the words I QUOTED from Mori VRabbi Rav Hershel Schachter. As a rule when I write that it is a quote, it is a quote. I am an academic. In fact, it was an email directly to me verbatim, which I received after Pesach from Mori VRabbi. Again, it is wrong to make suppositions. I did not provide any name in my question to him as that is entirely irrelevant. Regarding your substantive question for the exact sources etc I will ask, however, he is a very busy person effectively also the lone Senior Posek for OU (has Rav Belsky a'h been replaced?) and RIETS as well as his daily shiurim at RIETS and being Rosh Yeshiva and Kollel etc and you will appreciate that his answer to the query may not be immediate. Dr Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 13:07:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:07:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727B36A.7000303@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 03:22 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > On May 3, 2016 4:05 AM, "Zev Sero" > wrote: >> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: >>> Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation >> The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! > Correct, it's predicated upon factually incorrect information However on being challenged he refused to back this claim up. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 14:41:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:41:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can > indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. Zvi Lampel (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) [The attached PDF was identical to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/51283 -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 15:43:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 00:43:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: RAM mentioned that: > last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining > the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and > explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on > Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an > expression of stepping." ... and asked: > How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 > years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? As you yourself wrote earlier in that post, the French call the holiday paques (with an accent circonflexe on the a, but that renders badly on Avodah). It is derived from the Latin, like the Spanish pascua, too. I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke of genius that serves its purpose well. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 22:27:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 01:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: <64eee8.a68b9f3.445990cc@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach >....Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. ... [--RAM] And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL >>>>>> You don't inspect the host's kitchen because you don't eat in his house! That's the point! Chassidim and others have this minhag of "not mishing" on Pesach --" not mixing" our meals with other families. This custom of not eating at other people's houses on Pesach has its source in this, precisely: the desire not to insult anyone, not to embarrass anyone and not to hurt anyone's feelings on this of all holidays, the one holiday when we are all more careful than usual about what we will and will not eat. The "unfriendly" chassidishe minhag has a very friendly corollary, at least in chutz la'aretz where we have two days of yom tov: On the last day of Pesach we /davka/ go out to eat or invite others to our homes and make a point of "mishing." If you don't have anyone over for a meal at least you go out visiting other people's homes in the afternoon, and make a point of eating something there. It's sort of like a sukka hop, you try to visit a few different homes and also host a few different people in your home. At least this was the minhag in my family growing up and among the people I knew in my youth. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 23:35:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >>Two bundles of goods >>may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. >>So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God >>really want that? [--RDR] Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such natural evils. Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Properly speaking "evil" only refers to something that has a moral dimension. The question of "Why does G-d allow evil?" has an obvious answer -- to allow scope for bechira, for free will. That doesn't fully answer the question, of course. We see many cases where He thwarts the nefarious plots of our enemies, which leaves us with aching questions in those cases when He seemingly stands by and does /not/ thwart their plots -- the Holocaust being the most wrenching example. There are a lot of answers but perhaps none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be called evil at all (unless you want to impute evil motives to the Borei c'v!). Rather, here the question is "Why is there suffering in the world?" This is a different question from the question of why does He allow evil people to commit evil deeds. Again there are many different answers, some of which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as well as Divine reasons we can't think of. "Evil" and "suffering" can overlap, as when evil people cause other people to suffer, but they are still two different categories. BTW the idea that a benevolent G-d "couldn't" or "wouldn't" do this or that is an arrogant and ignorant idea, the product of puny human minds. And compared to our Creator, even the most brilliant human mind is puny. Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I did ask Him to take them away. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 04:10:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: I wrote: > This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of > the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? > > Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of > the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? #1) In the article cited, much was made of an incident when Rava went to visit Rav Nachman, who was Rava's rebbe, and was thus presumably at least as strict as Rava. (See the article for more information, and for various ways of understanding that gemara.) #2) I, personally, am not very knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of this practice, such as who follows it, or to what extent they follow it. That's whay I can't answer your question by pointing to people who won't even eat in their parents' homes; I have no idea whether or not this practice really goes that far. HOWEVER, I do presume that the author of the article is familiar with these things, and near the beginning of the article, he writes: > perhaps the most intriguing of Pesach stringencies is the widespread > minhag not to eat anyone else's food during the Pesach holiday, even > if the other person keeps their chumros. It seems from this that Rabbi Reiss *is* aware of people who avoid eating other food, even when they do know that their standards have not been otherwise lessened. There can be many ways of knowing this, without "make[ing] an inspection of the host's kitchen and review[ing] all of the products he uses ... insulting to the host", such as when they are close family members, or friends, and/or the host actually invites the guest to examine his products and practices. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 06:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:43:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah Message-ID: The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon are factually correct? Those I have communicated with seem to be incapable or unwilling. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:20:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:43:08PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, : anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon : are factually correct? Which fact are you not sure of: 1- That until a couple of decades before the teshuvah people did not count kneading time toward the kedei hilukh mil, and then people (at least around Easter Europe) did? 2- That rushing the kneading because it now has to fit within the mil along with baking time would increase the chance that there was unkneaded flour on or in the matzah? 3- That the Baal haTanya is brighter than you, and should be second-guessed with care? Even if someone known to be brilliant makes a mistake, you know it's not likely to be a trivial one. 4- Or, the original topic.... That I would find it unlikely that RMF would consider a minhag endorsed by the SA haRav should be dropped without very strong motive? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:28:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:28:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products; e.g, my wife makes mayonnaise for Pesach, although I no longer churn butter, as he did -- yeridas hadoros): I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.. I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no alternative. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:40:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503144014.GA18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:43:39AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also : be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that : gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the : meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke : of genius that serves its purpose well. Much of what gets called "chassidishe Torah" is similar -- it's not a real answer to the question posed, but it is real Torah. Presented in a way that makes a roshem on a listener. As for etymologies, I think there is also a gray area. "Yarmulka" is a term in a number of Slavic languages for whatever cap the locals wore. But if no one had created the folk etymology of "yarei Malka", would the term have become as widespread or as long-lived as it did? Historically, the name Shneiur is from Signor or perhaps Spanish Sen~or, or most likely the original Latin "Senior", which means "Zaqein", with all the implications of sagicity. But I think more Shneiurs today are named for the shnei or of Shabbos licht. Especially since that's why R Aharon and Rn Rivqah Chanah Perel Kotler chose the name for their son, born Friday evening. (BTW, RSK was a dapper looking man in his Chevron days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Kotler#/media/File:Rabbi_Shneur_Kotler.jpg Found it while looking to confirm the story about when he was born.) OTOH, Marche-shvan vs "Mar Cheshvan" has halachic import, and one cannot let the folk etymology cause people to write the wrong thing on a gett; nor to forget that the month names were from galus Bavel, and not related to the Hebrew word "mar". But in general, folk etymologies too have causitive power. (It's just that in my last example, I think we need to resist it.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:09:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:09:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> References: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160503150952.GB18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:38AM -0400, Rn Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without : Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents : for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. : : But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects : and other such natural evils. : I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Yes, but fixing my misspeech doesn't change my point. To apply the correction: Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. : none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that : we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. Does that necessarily mean we cannot know His Goals either, or only how they play out in practice? IOW, perhaps we can conclude that HYashem wants a world of hatavah, including being meitiv us with the joy of being able to be meitivim ourselves, without knowing why that means He would choose providing Tov in one case and why He left us on our own in another. : The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be : called evil at all... True, but if we correct my language, then the question too needs correction: How is the existence of *suffering* consistent with the Existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent G-d? : which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of : the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as : well as Divine reasons we can't think of. Including free will. For all I know, Hashem lets certain diseases foster because He Wants to give us the opportunity to cure them. That does not address His Choice of victims, though. I suggested four answers to theodicy, keneged arba banim: The chakham doesn't really answer it, he instead asks "How does Hashem want me to respond?" The rasha gets yisurim as punishment. In the Haggadah we tell him that its not the tragedy that is leading him to rejecting G-d its his rejection of G-d that led him to the tragedy. The tam gets yisurim shel ahavah. He didn't do anything wrong, but he is shaken out of the rut that keeps him from trying to be a chakham. And the she'eino yodea' lish'ol gets the life he does because, well, there are times where the thing we want is a greater nisayon, than the situation we find tragic. And if we are not up to the challenge, if its a test that we couldn't pass, G-d doesn't make us face it. I say it better and with more backing at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pesach-5761-the-four-sons-confront-tragedy But my point in my earlier post wasn't whether or not theodicy is answeable, but that the issue of theodicy was simply ignored by the philosophy professor giving the online course I pointed to. Which, in turn, was why I thought that a translation of something R Sherky said to university students (repeated from Twitter) requires more examiunation of the original. To repeat (since I find this topic more useful than trying to answer tzadiq vera lo): : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? "Can't find"? This professor of philosophy missed a huge theological topic. My guess is that "lo nimtza" was translated overly literally and RYS was replying to questioned for which no answer exists. And yes, someone should be intellectually honest enough to give up his religion if it really were disproven. An impossible hypothetical (we know a Torah-follower's religion won't ever really be disproven, beyond minor misunderstood peratim); so not very meaningful, but not something it would shock me to hear a rav say. : Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. : But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, : a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, : and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I : really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained : from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I : did ask Him to take them away. I said something similar recently about "lir'os es atzmo ke'ilu hu yatza miMitzrayim" . I wrote about how the RBSO put into process even before I was born events that caused my lymphoma to be diagnosed while still in stage 1, BH and ba"h. A rare form of lymphoma that (as of 2010) had only afflicted two other people, both rescue workers who helped look for their comrade's remains in the weeks after 9/11. Here's just the post-script: To be intellectually honest: The story loses some of its impact if you think about Office Ryan and Firefighter Endicott's families, who lost their love ones specifically because they were determined to give other rescue workers' families the closure of being able to make a funeral. On 9/11 itself, for every story retold of someone who was spared being there because they were out doing some mitzvah is a story of someone who seems no less deserving who was killed in the attack. Every life has its own story. I cannot know G-d's calculus in my own, never mind in others'. But the mystery of tzadiq vera lo (why the righteous suffer) doesn't free me from feeling grateful for the good in my life (hakaras hatov) and feeling thankful to the ones -- or in this case the One -- who provide it (hoda'ah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503151406.GC18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:28:43PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which : had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products... : I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree : of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted : practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no : alternative. Which is the only way the minhag could be non-offensive. I am reminded of the rav who establishes a policy not to eat in any mispallel's home, so that no one is offended by their rabbi having to judge their home's kashrus as insufficient. Still, I think it would be elegant if people who have the minhag of misht zikh nisht adopt the minhag of Maimouna. We might not be able to eat together on Pesach, but let's all share the simchas Isru Chag! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 10:08:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160503170842.GD18204@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:46:56PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law : of the excluded middle. : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle However, not only does RYBS's discussion of bein hashemashos really rely on defying the law of contradiction by saying "both" rather than the excluded middle's "something in between", so does his invocation of "almanas isa" and "isa lashon safeiq hu" -- safeiq is a dough. For that matter, the same could be said of erev (although RYBS didn't) -- an irbuvia of day and night. So I think that RYBS actually meant that halakhah had no law of contradiction. Which may be a consequence of allowing middle values between yes and no, I haven't found it spelled out anywhere. BTW, the notion that a tenai needs to be said in both positive and negative is also relevant, as only saying "I promise to do X if Y" is insufficient if Y could be both true and false or somewhere between true and false -- in those cases, whether or not I commit to doing X is ambiguous. Eg "I promise to do X if the next person to enter the room is tall" would lead to a she'eilah if the person walking in is a 5'11" American man (where Google the average is 5'10"). "Tall" is a non-boolean predicate -- a person could be somewhat tall, and not just because it's a matter of opinion, but between there is a gray area about the bottom of the set. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:19:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 01:19:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I am seeking the facts that the Teshuvah employs to support a Halachic ruling that Gebrochts is Assur. so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - 1] until a couple of decades beforehand kneading time was not included in the kedei hilukh mil time 2] this reduced production time created a credible risk of flour remaining in the baked Matzah? I am nowhere near the lofty heights of the BaAl HaTanya. But I am commanded, as is all of BNY, to learn and question and as R Ch Voloshiner says [Paskens?] we are not permitted to accept a ruling or a Peshat if there are questions that remain unanswered. It seems that we are having a dispute about RMF arguing with a Minhag endorsed by the SA HaRav. I propose that since Gebrochts is without Halachic foundation, it does not require Hatarah. Others think this is impossible since the SH HaRav endorses Gebrochts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:55:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:55:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160503185522.GA28828@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:19:27AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 . (Same as when we had this same conversation 3 years ago.) Twenty years is mentioned on 476, the paragraph that beging "Ve'af" -- "...ad shemiqarov zeh esrim shanah o yotseir, nishpatah zehirus zu beYisrael qedoshim, lemaheir me'od me'od belishah..." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 20:12:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5728E9FB.8010609@zahav.net.il> A close friend told me that he his uncle (and family) would come to his father's home for seder (in Poland before the war), bring his own food and table cloth, and by doing this was considered to be meiqil. Ben On 5/3/2016 4:28 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on > Pesach, unless there was no alternative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 09:42:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jonathan Traum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> Message-ID: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> > Lisa Liel wrote: >>> According to >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >>> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's >> berakhah >> of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw >> from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? I can't say with any authority what was in Yaakov Avinu's thoughts there, but lion imagery in the ancient world certainly does seem to predate him. On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > ... > But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's > question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves > are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The king of the wild animals is the lion..." Jonathan Traum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:12:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah Message-ID: In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on the other. Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from joining together for a meal 2) RSZA always took simchat shabbat/yomtov into account in his piskei halacha. A rabbi who is machmir not to allow using a shabbat elevator may be forcing someone who lives on the 30th floor to spend every shabbat without a minyan and without any company and certainly without oneh shabbat. RSZA was an advocate of tzomet because he felt it important to help especially the disadvantaged. Thus, he felt it important to invent a wheelchair good for invalids that can be used on shabbat 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also important even when it relies on DNA evidence. This is just a sampling of many areas where some poskim try and be conservative while RMA insists that just blindly doing the old thing is not necessarily the conservative or macmir way. His favorite analogy is a group of people who live in the tropics and wear swimwear. Because of circumstances they move to a colder area. There now arises a dispute should they continue to wear swimwear because thats what their ancestors wore or do they change to warmer clothing. The change is also meant to be conservative: the ancestors wore clothing that matched the climate and so they should wear clothing that match the clothing. The reformists change clothing simply because they dont care what the ancestors wore -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 13:15:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 16:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> Message-ID: <572906F0.5020105@sero.name> On 05/03/2016 12:42 PM, Jonathan Traum via Avodah wrote: > On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> >But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's >> >question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves >> >are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? > ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The > king of the wild animals is the lion..." Yes, it does now. As the result of this discussion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 14:45:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:45:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <000801d1a585$16ecdbf0$44c693d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RET wrote > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article > by a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel And RBW replied: >RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see >below) may apply). >The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev >Shabbat: >1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). >2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza >3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. >Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. >Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is >practiced). So what is the difference in this case? >Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? Of course, this is just a reiteration of the discussion we had last year - here is my post. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n069.shtml#10 The positions cited here appear to be taken directly from the Rav Poelim. See the citation there regarding the issur of handling food on fast days. >Ben Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 06:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos Message-ID: RBen Waxman cited the following: "This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issue." Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 05:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:04:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] women cutting hair in the omer Message-ID: I just saw that ROY paskens that women are allowed to cut their cut during the sefirah. Does anyone know if this is widely accepted? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 14:43:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:43:42 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Avoid situations that embarrass In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline. A story that displays a slightly different perspective - the visitor who insisted on drinking his tea in the host's Succah when the host who was not enjoying the best of health was entertaining the guest in his house. The host accompanied his guest explaining to the now uncomfortable guest, I am exempt from the mitzvah of Succah but obligated in the mitzvah of Hachnossas Orchim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 17:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160505004747.GB22983@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:34:09PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The : Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish : Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside : world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to : others subunits (e.g. ethnic). I am curious to see that article, because I would have thought the causality was the reverse. The Rama knew of an Ashkenazi mesorah that had numerous differences with Sepharadi pesaq since well before the SA. It was on that basis thyat he was able to categorize the SA as "their" rulings. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 11th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 strict justice? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 04:50:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:50:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would > be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in > the universe at all. > > But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. > Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence not a real good at all. But suppose we leave the world of mussar, where my goal is to grow spiritually by becoming a better person, and improving the relationship between myself and Hashem. Instead, let's focus on getting more social. It's not that I want to improve myself, but that I want to do things that other people will benefit and get pleasure from. In a world where people are busy interacting, but the laws of nature prohibit Nazis, the problem is not that good doesn't *exist*. The problem is that good isn't recognized or appreciated. Everyone is always doing nice things to everyone else, so much so that the beneficiaries don't notice it. Not because they are ungrateful, but because they literally don't notice it -- they have nothing to compare it to. This is how the world runs. What else might one expect? And THAT's why there is "no real good in the universe at all." Ad caan, RMB's reisha. But this only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Evil -- or at least the potential for it -- is necessary so that we can appreciate the good. What about congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering? My first reaction is to give the same answer as above: No one will appreciate good health unless bad health is a possibility. And then I feel ashamed of my insensitivity, my hardheartedness, my callousness. How can I not cry for the babies struggling in pain, just so I can score some points in this discussion? But, truth be told, that insensitivity reared its head many paragraphs ago, when we first contemplated "a world without Nazis". Are the victims of "naturally caused suffering" entitled to more consideration than the victims of Nazi-caused suffering? I don't think so. My heart goes out to both of them, to all of them, and I feel guilty, wondering about where my heart is when I thank G-d for the good He has given me. I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 20:02:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 05:02:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> On 5/3/2016 8:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on > the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on > the other. > > Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) > > 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be > machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without > kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from > simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from > joining together for a meal. If the parents of a Sefardi son in law > can provide him with halaq meat 52 weeks out of a year, he can deal > with their rice issue one week a year. I know that I sound like a broken record but . . . We have a long history of chumrot in kashrut and a long history of dealing with them. Kintiyot can be dealth with, halachakly and culinarily, just like almost all of these issues. Having an in law with food allergies is going to present much more of a challenge to a host than having an in law who doesn't eat rice. > > > 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most > halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is > overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity > might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone > agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA > points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as > inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also > important even when it relies on DNA evidence. > For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:08:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:08:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: yom hazikaron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the importance of standing during the siren on yom hazikaron by Rav Stav (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=4174 on aveilut vs chol hamoed during sefira by Rav Cherlow (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=5629 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:20:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 18:20:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572B72D1.2030303@zahav.net.il> Rav Tawil was basing himself on a psak given by Rav Ovadia Yosef, tz"l, which is summarized here: http://halachayomit.co.il/he/Default.aspx?HalachaID=3938 KT Ben On 5/4/2016 3:26 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > ? ? ? Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet > repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, > even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would > seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. > ? > EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:15:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:15:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben _____________________________________________ IMHO DNA is a real Pandora's box which it seems that poskim are taking an approach that to an outsider might be viewed as pragmatic (vs intellectually mandated) by accepting it as a secondary sirgn but not primary so as to specifically not get into the parentage issue. What will happen when everyone's dna/genetic map is available feom a simple stick test? 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:24:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:24:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1255?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=96_=EE=F1=E5?= =?windows-1255?b?+OQg4fnh5fIg4Of4IPTx5w==?= Message-ID: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160505154013.GF22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:50:01AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change : anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics : categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind : to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. I am not in your target audience, as I am happy with my current answer and thus probably too closed minded on this question to be influenced, but... : RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he : free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then : whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not : the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence : not a real good at all... Not my intent. Let me explain what I was trying to say from a different direction. What makes free will possible? The fact that we can think about thinking. Bechira chofshi and being aware of one's own thoughts and feelings (or a subset of them) go hand-in-hand. When we think about and make decisions based on that metacognizent "inputs" we are able to change how we think and truly exercise BC. I think this underlize REED's concept of a nequdas habechirah. It is only at the "battlefront" between two warring desires/drives that BC comes into play because it is only there that the decision happens slow even to occur consciously. You might recall that when we discussed tza'ar baalei chaim (in at least 2 iterations), I suggested that while animals feel pain, they have no "I" about which they could think "I am in pain". Pain, but without a critical element that turns it into true suffering. I gave a neurological argument -- animals lack the part of prefrontal cortext we use to do metacognizance, so why assume they can? Maybe when it comes to animals, the Behaviorists are right. But I also made a hashkafic argument. If a thinking being could be aware of the thinking itself, and think about thinking, it would have free will. Since only people have BC, which in the opinion of many (including the Meshekh Chokhmah) is that very tzelem E-lokim, they can't be self-aware of their thought. Pain as a stimulus away from something, but not "Oy am I in pain!" of true suffering on a human level. So I was making a philosophical point about the goodness. Not that it lacks worth of purpose, but the ability to enjoy good and the ability to make decisions go hand-in-hand. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:48:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:48:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160505154808.GG22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:02:38AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be : declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth : it? Mamzeirus is not a good example for a general discussion of chumeros. Kivan denitma nitma. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that we are to ignore most sefeiqos -- safeiq mamzer in a yichus-ly kosher community, or a mamzer in a safeiq community. (See for a nice discussion.) I think it would be assur to check mamzeirus using DNA, except in those few cases where we otherwise are chosheish for the safeiq anyway, like a shetuqi or asufi. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim Message-ID: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> H/T Mosaic Magazine See : Bible Odyssey Who Were the Sadducees? by Michael L. Satlow ... The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq, the name of the high priest at the time of King David (1Kings 1:39). Later sources also link the Sadducees to the priesthood (for example, Acts 4:1). However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. In the uproar that ensued, a Sadducee convinced Hyrcanus to abandon the Pharisees for the Sadducees. Whether true or not, this story might point to the Sadducees' origin as a political party allied with the Hasmoneans. Josephus tantalizingly mentions that the Sadducees ascribe authority to Scripture, not to the ancestral traditions handed down by the Pharisees: ... I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion i a dichotomy. Also, what kind of news is in that the Chashmonaim were in league with the Tzeduqim? Regardless of Josephus's story, why wouldn'tthe family that held the power of both Kohein Gadol and Melekh want to deprecate any form of Judaism that would make them share power with the rabbinate? Can the more historically informed please comment if this post is a non-story (which finding it in Mosaic Magazine led me to doubt) or what the chiddush is here? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:55:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:55:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=E2=80=93_=D7=9E?= =?utf-8?b?16HXldeo15Qg15HXqdeR15XXoiDXkNeX16gg16TXodeX?= In-Reply-To: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> References: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <572B7B0D.3050906@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 10:24 AM, Lawrence Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see > http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e 1) Every Ashkenazi siddur says that in summer we say vesein brocho and (in places where it's customary) morid hatol, and in winter we say tal umotor and mashiv horuach. Since we are now saying the former, it is summer, and wishing each other a good summer is therefore appropriate. 2) There is no pressure on anyone to bake a shlissel challah. The blogger is engaging in a fantasy so he can rant about it. Rather, every year we are subjected to ranting from opponents of this custom who can't bear the thought that some people do have it. The blogger has his mesorah, and good on him for adhering to it, but it is irrelevant to the vast majority of us who do not share it. Those who don't have this particular custom of are free not to do it, and nobody will denounce them for it; but they must have the same respect for those who do it, whether because their ancestors did it as far back as anyone knows, or because they heard about it last week and decided it sounded like a nice thing to do. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 10:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:19:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572B80AB.3050808@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 12:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. He was not accused of being a mamzer but a chalal, because his mother had once been kidnapped and was thus unfit to be married a kohen. We don't need to go to Josephus for this story, it's a braisa in Kiddushin 66a. > I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually > led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion > is a dichotomy. The article makes the same point: "In antiquity, there was no neat division between politics and religion". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 12:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:41:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <520b4de4-831a-8f00-6b0d-1cd935504656@starways.net> On 5/5/2016 7:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > See : ... > by Michael L. Satlow ... > ... > The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the > Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term > Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq... The myth that the Tzedukim got their name from Tzadok the Kohen Gadol has zero basis to it. Except maybe the quote from Acts, which has no weight. The origin of the Tzedukim appears in Avot d'Rabbi Natan, where we find that the eponymous Tzadok was one of the talmidim of Antigonus Ish Socho. > However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not > as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus > mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high > priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer]... Also, despite Josephus's claims, the accusation wasn't that he was a mamzer; it was that he was a chalal. The article is a non-story. Lisa [To be fair without bothering to post a full reply for something off-topic: The original had a word I wasn't comfortable repeating on-list, starts with a "b", so I assumed the usual back-translation to the Hebrew. I have no idea what Josephus actually wrote, nor do I expect a Xian to bother explaining chalal rather than use a general term for what used to be called an "illegitimate" child. So I don't know if it's Josephus's claims that's off or a miscommunication caused by my trying to be overly frummy. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:53:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know how you can say that. Admittedly, the Creator apparently wanted a world in which there are both Nazis /and/ birth defects, since that's the world He created. But there is a HUGE difference between the two -- between the pain caused by evil people through their own free will, and the suffering that occurs as the result of disease and other natural causes. One thought experiment will illustrate the difference. Imagine a mother whose child dies as the result of a birth defect. Let's even say the child dies after a period of pain and suffering. Now imagine another mother whose child dies because a Nazi snatched the child from her arms and killed the child in some sadistic way, in front of the mother's eyes. Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:29:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 06:29:53 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? or within it? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:22:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:22:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when > there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. > Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF > Every case is judged on its own. I was just an eid to a get of the sort, where certain kullot in the berurei sheimot were accepted because it was such a kind of get lechumra. In other situations, we may be quicker to allow a kitvu uttenu for a civil marriage divorce. As I said, every case is judged on its own. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:42:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:42:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrot Message-ID: In light of the comments of Rabbi Folger and others let me restate my opinion of chumrot. There are several levels of chumrot and kulot 1) The chumrah is personal and doesn't affect anyone else - perfectly OK but one shouldn't gloat or look down on those who don't accept the chumra 2) At the other extreme are things like monetary manners where every chumra for one side is a kula for the other side 3) For things in between one has to compare the chumra to the "price" being paid So for kitniyot - the prohibition is relatively mild but OTOH doing without the specific kitniyot is not a major deal either (in most cases) I personally get annoyed at husbands that won't carry (or push the carriage) even with an eruv but the wife does everything. I am not sure how much the women really volunteer. In any case the hardship is relatively mild (again in most cases) The harder cases are where the prohibition is more severe but the effects are more severe Examples from before include shabbat problems that might prevent one from leaving home every shabbat and ruining on a long term basis oneg shabbat. As Rabbi Folger points out various cases of gittin. Also cases involving DNA or other forms of controversial evidence. The main point R Avraham was making is that rabbis who take a "conservative: stance are not always being machmir since the effect on others may be severe. At times the more innovative approach may be the real conservative way. i.e. it saves the principle of the halacha rather than just some formality which is no longer relevant. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 07:59:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:59:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah Message-ID: RET wrote: > 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt > that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out > that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when > they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects > many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. Actually, that simply doesn't reflect the most widespread position on civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 05:34:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:34:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula Message-ID: <> Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one can't accept it in many other cases -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:14:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:14:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of > divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the > key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. > Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single > case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to > avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a > proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. > -- > Arie Folger, >> > chumrot that don't have side effects are fine. As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 16:29:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Schlissel Challah Message-ID: <20160506232927.GA27784@aishdas.org> Since everyone has to have a schlissel chalah post... Really I think it is about sources of yeast right after Pesach. There was no starter dough, so people would use beer foam. Beer foam yeast is too acrive for good dough. Fortunately, iron slows down yeast action. A key is a small convenient piece of iron to throw into the mix. But it is common for minhagim to be born from inventing reasons for things people already do. In this case... It relates to the key of rain and finances, described in Taanis 2, one of the three (or two of the four) keys that Hashem never delegates. If so, it is a reminder just as the wheat comes in, and. in the lands Ashkenazim were living in too. (The fresh grass which becomes a milk abundance just on time for Shavuos and Wittesmontag.) A reminder from Whom the spring wealth comes. And to thank Him accordingly, rather than to take credit. If so, ironically (for the naysayers), the custom is all about how wealth comes directly from G-d, not via angels, spiritual mechanisms, or tricks. Do you have a problem with dipping an apple in honey and other such simanei milsa of Rosh haShanah? Those too are symbols. The problem isn't with schlissel chalah. If people observed the custom for the kinds of reasons listed in this post, there would be nothing to object to. The problem I have is that it seems to have caught on beyond the original community because of people having magical thinking, trying to get HQBH to give them their wealth through segulah instead of (rather as inspiration for) the hard and long work of earning reward for being a better Jew. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 13th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 necessary for a good relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 14:26:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 00:26:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? Message-ID: I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). Shavua Tov, Hodesh Tov! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 19:49:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572EA93A.7030509@sero.name> On 05/07/2016 05:26 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). I am looking at a block of Tenuva salted butter, which bears the mehadrin hechsher of Tenuva's own rabbi, R Weitman, and also the hechsherim of the OU and Chug Chasam Sofer. I assume Chug Chasam Sofer is a mehadrin-only hechsher. Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk. It's also available in 10g and 200g with the mehadrin hechsher, and also in 10g and 100g with the hechsher of Badatz Edah Hacharedit. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=581 Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=582 However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to have this problem. http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/salted-butter http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/butter -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 21:35:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 07:35:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages > with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk... > > Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and > only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk... > > However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to > have this problem.... Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 22:00:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 01:00:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> On 05/08/2016 12:35 AM, Simon Montagu wrote: > > Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? Well, I don't see how it can be a halachic issue, since they do sell it with the mehadrin hechsher in the USA, to consumers whose kashrut standards are presumably the same those of Israeli mehadrin consumers. Nor, given the size and internal diversity of the Israeli mehadrin market, and its overlap with the USA one, can it plausibly be attributed to a cultural difference. What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available in 100g packs, in either country. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 8 20:36:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 06:36:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> Message-ID: <87b8dde5-91ed-0b4e-3d8f-268d85c4c13f@starways.net> On 5/8/2016 8:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available > in 100g packs, in either country. > The idea of salted butter was originally to be able to sell the butter longer. If the butter has gone off (rancid) a little, salting it hides that. So a lot of people refuse to buy salted butter, figuring that if it's unsalted, they *know* whether it's good or not, and they can always salt it themselves if they want. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 04:36:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:36:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RavSharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< ... Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. >>> The difference that I see, is that in one case the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards Hashem, and in the second case, the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards both Hashem and the Nazi. But as I understand this conversation, we are discussing theodicy, which is the question of "How can a good God allow such a thing to happen?" And in that regard I see no difference between the two cases. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 10:37:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160509173704.GA27325@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 05:41:13PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger :> The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can :> indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. : : I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... : where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in : fact it implies the opposite Then why would you think tht was the reference? Pesach 30 is where he discusses zeh le'umas zeh, so mybe they're talking about the implied lack of a law of contradiction? (Ie that creation comes in paradoxical pairs.) YOu are asking for a source for something I have been repeating since before its appearance in Avodah vol 1, something I learne from R' Aryeh Kaplan. Sources, even my notebook from those days, are not at hand. But I'm working on it -- al titya'esh. Actually, I am on the hunt for where I saw the point in seifer haHigayon. The Ramchal defined higayon as a tool the seikhel was given. I am just looking for where I found it explicit that logic was created for people. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 15:52:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi writes: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface > which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." > > May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? > > Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour > WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the kneading specifically. Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:02:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160510010206.GA9905@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 6:52pm EDT, R Akiva Miller: : I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then : flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, : I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the : kneading specifically. : Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? : I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 2:55pm EDT, I wrote: > Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos > Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 > . -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57313304.90006@sero.name> On 05/09/2016 06:52 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Teshuvah #6, in the Shu"t at the back of volume 6. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=486 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=487 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 20:09:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:09:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: Many thanks to R' Zev Sero and R' Micha Berger for sending me links to the HebrewBooks.org edition, and at almost the same instant. R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a > little flour on their surface which is a consequence > of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." I responded: > I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in > the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. > If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the > general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the > kneading specifically. I now suspect that the situation was a bit different than I had imagined. I would like to suggest that the matzos described by the Alter Rebbe had plain flour through and through, as a result of the dough being dry and hard, and difficult to knead, exactly as described. But the Rebbe complained only about the flour on the outside, and I suspect that this is because it presents a bigger halachic problem than the flour on the inside. I first got this feeling in the paragraph "V'hinei eineinu", though I can't point to any specific words where he might have said this. But in the paragraph "V'af d'haMagen Avraham", he is machmir on one who crumbles his matza into the soup, but he is meikil for one who puts matza balls into the soup. What I translated as "matza balls" are, more precisely in his words, "ground matza that they make into rounds (agulim)", and the room for leniency is because it can be judged to be a ta'aroves. I'm going into some detail here, because he is NOT talking about crumbling some matza into a dry bowl, which would contain a mixture of matza meal and flour, and the flour would lose its identity to the matza meal before it ever got wet. No, that's not what he is talking about. He makes explicit reference to these balls which were made previously, and were added to the soup afterward, I am at a loss to explain the advantage of these matza balls over one who crumbles his matza directly into the soup. The only advantage I see is that one who crumbles the matza into his soup is making chometz personally, whereas in the other case the chometz was made in the kitchen when the matza balls were fashioned. (Footnote 45 there might be saying something similar.) Be that as it may, it leads me to a very wild guess that when the dough is not kneaded well, it will have flour on the inside, and although one might think that this flour is subject to chimutz, the truth is that there is some room for leniency because that flour is batel to the matza itself. However, this leniency applies only to the flour inside the matza, and not to the flour on the outer surface of the matza. Again, this paragraph is only a wild guess that I offer to the group. (On a side point, I'd like to ask about the modern "hard (kasheh)" dough that the Alter Rebbe described. Why was it hard? I can understand spending less time kneading it so that it can be rushed into the oven, but the Rebbe seems to feel that the consistency of the dough changed too. Why would anyone think that using less water is a good idea? Kneading a bread dough is hard work, and it seems like common sense to me that if we want to knead it well, you'd use *more* water, not less. Does extra water accelerate the chimutz, independently of the temperature of that water?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 03:50:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:50:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach?" The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz that was sold to a goy in Israel because none of the hechsherim (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one is checking that it is true. See for example http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X9_D8LFI5O8/UWEoF_JIlgI/AAAAAAAAAc4/XDKyPFsMN7Q/s1600/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%94+%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8+%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.jpg Some people rely on checking product codes which tells them when the product was made. However, this is not that useful. All it says is that the product was made after Pesach. However, every Chometz product has chometz ingredients in it (at least flour which is most probably chometz because it was washed) and the consumer has no way of knowing when the chometz ingredients were made and who owned over them over Pesach. For example even if you only buy cookies that were made after Pesach you have no idea what flour was used. It is very possible/probable that the flour used to make the cookies was chometz and was sold for Pesach. Som people only eat things that were made with flour that was fround after Pesach. However there a problem with this as well. Flour in Israel is very low in gluten and therefore won't rise well unless gluten is added. All bakeries add gluten to the flour in all baked goods. There is no gluten produced in Israel, it is all imported mostly from Germany, France, and China. Gluten by definition is chamtez gamur . Because it needs to be imported gluten must be SOLD to a Goy over Pessach; unless the bakeries want to close shop for a few weeks waiting for a new shipment. Since they start making bread literally a few hours after Pesach is over they must be using gluten that they sold to a goy. Therefore, even if the bread says baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach, the gluten was most definitely sold and therefore you are relying on the sale to a goy. In other words they are pulling the wool over your eyes. They say that it was baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach but conveniently leave out the bit about gluten that was sold. (source http://www.bhol.co.il/9196/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.html ) In short, this is a chumra that makes people feel frum but has no basis in halacha and is in fact not really possible to keep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 04:13:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:13:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Message-ID: R' Elazar Teitz wrote: "I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.." On the other hand there is a famous story (printed in the Brisker Haggada and in HaRav MiBrisk) about the Brisker Rav visiting R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach in Vilna in 1941. The Brisker Rav thought that the sugar in Vilna had Kitniyos mixed in and therefore did not use it on Pesach. However, when the Brisker Rav visited R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach, R' Chaim Ozer served him tea with sugar which the Brisker Rav accepted and drank. Afterwards, someone (his son?) asked him why did he drink the tea with the sugar if there was a chashash of kitniyos in the sugar? He answered that not eating kitniyos is a minhag but being mevaze a talmid chacham is an issur d'oraysa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 08:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:52:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573203A1.3050503@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz > that was sold to a goy in Israel//because none of the hechsherim > (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) > hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when > things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the > manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one > is checking that it is true. Since it's only a chumra, why not just trust the manufacturer? Most manufacturers are honest, and if you happen to come across one who isn't you haven't really lost anything. In any case, while there are of course those who look for the "baked after Pesach" label for kashrus reasons, I assume that *most* people who look for this label do so as a guarantee of freshness. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 12:20:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 22:20:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:35:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:35:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f382b3d9eba7690e3482efc18d4e958@aishdas.org> On 2016-05-10 5:31 pm, H Lampel wrote: > Any luck with this? > > Zvi > On 5/2/2016 5:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. > > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. > > Zvi Lampel > (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) The truth is, this machloqes is something I was repeating since R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l was alive. (I mention it in Avodah vol. 1.) And RAK's presentation on logic that made it to print (years before my NCSY days) does not mention the Ramchal's side. Well, it does mention Derekh Hashem 1:1:5 but in the context of one of the paradoxes he's trying to resolve, not about allowing for paradoxes. So I'm trying to dig up an old memory of his stated source. I was thinking of a few places in sefer haHigayon and Derekh Tevunos, which I am still looking for. The Ramchal describes higayon and tevunah as tools Hashem created for a sekhel to use. I thought it was the haqdamah, but since not... The Maharal's model of machloqesin (on Avos 5:17) allows for paradoxes to result when we try to map the supernal Emes to olam hazeh. This point is not THAT relevant, but it's about machloqesin (perhaps only a subset, see end of Be'er 7 which says not every machloqes is eilu va'eilu), and I am writing to the Baal haDynamics. Anyway, it's not really a statement about logic, any more than saying that two shadows of a 3D object can differ and yet both be real shadows. (BTW, the copy of Dynamics in the beis medrash at Yeshiva of Greater Washington is well-worn and due for replacement or rebinding. I was just in the neighborhood for Grandparents' Day at my grandchildren's school.) I did post on-list (to appear in the next digest) that the nearest _pesach _30 gets to denying logic is that "zeh le'umas zeh" denies the law of contradiction. Which doesn't mean Hashem is above logic; it could just mean Hashem's logic isn't the classical one. Which I pointed out in a few halachic examples -- safeiq lashon isah hu appears to mean that a doubt is a coexistence of conflicting states, the need for a tenai to be in both positive and negative, etc... _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 Tue May 10 13:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:31:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57324535.7050501@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 03:20 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) They are discussing the buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), obviously, not the bison (Bison bison). Buffalo have been known in Europe and Asia for thousands of years, and have nothing to do with bison. Americans may be in the sloppy habit of calling bison "buffalo", but since neither the Mechaber nor the Rama were American this is irrelevant. Americans also have a fish they call "buffalo", but that's equally irrelevant. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:55:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:55:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Rav Tal on the state of Israel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160510235548.GA7880@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:10:45PM +0300, R Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim: > In these days of the yahrzeit of RAL there are many articles about > him. One article says that RAL objected strongly to the above > statements. He questions whether any rabbi has the "email address" > of hashem and knows what is helping or hindering the coming of Moshiach. His rebbe and FIL held a similar opinion. Which is why RYBS suggested to those talmidim who were going to say the Tefillah leShalom haMedinah that they might be able to get adding "shetehei" without arguments from the congregation May our Father who is in heaven bless Israel that it become the beginning of the flowering of our redemption, rather than asserting as a given that Israel is that beginning. R SY Alkalai and R ZH Kalisher, the first RZ (or religious proto-Zionist) voices, certainly did speak in terms of ge'ulah and qibbutz golios in the eschatological sense. However, R' Yitzcvhaq Reines, Mizrachi's founder, as well as R' Shmuel Mohilever were also non-messianic in their Zionism, and yet their Zionism was religious, not in addition to their religion. We've discussed in the past the fact that not all RZism is Messianic Zionism, and in fact amongst RZ gedolim, this opinion might not even have the majority. Depending, of course, on the fruitless exercise of defining who is a gadol. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:17:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:17:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to India. They did not initiate the discussion - The Be'ar Hagola tracks the source of that halacha to the Agur (Rabbi Yaakov Landau, 15th century) who was quoting Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron of 13th century Trani, Italy. In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water buffalo, an animal that is raised domestically as cattle in parts of Italy. It is from the milk of water buffalo that mozzarella cheese was originally made near Naples, Italy, and in southern Italy it is still used to make "authentic" mozzarella cheese. This would lead one to suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a kosher behamah (domesticated animal) see here for detals: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:38:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:38:21 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. ie from the halachic point of view is it a bigger problem having a memorial day in Nissan; or a simcha day in Iyar. and from a hashkafic view which is more problematic. the latter comes onto violation of 3 Oaths, idea of a 'secular' state in holy land etc . the former only that somehow holocaust is a prelude to a State, and that those who died resisting were somehow more valiant.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <57327651.5030802@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 04:17 PM, Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah wrote: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to > India. Not "likely". There's not even a hava amina otherwise. > In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water > buffalo Not just Italian but in pretty much every language, including English. > This would lead one to > suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, > were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a > kosher behamah (domesticated animal) Again, this is not a suspicion, it's a complete certainty, and I'm astonished that it even occurs to anyone to question it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:22:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 03:22:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0822d59a-9d49-b752-e005-a309ae78f4c0@starways.net> On 5/10/2016 11:38 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction > these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more > objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. Yom HaShoah is almost certainly more problematic. When the government of Israel asked the rabbis to make a Holocaust remembrance day, they were told that Tisha B'Av and Asara B'Tevet (Yom kiddush klal) covered it, and refused to create a separate day. The Knesset created Yom HaShoah themselves. It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious observances is likely to have a problem with it. Personally, I'm one of them, and while I won't walk down the sidewalk whistling on Yom HaShoah, I don't otherwise pay any attention to the day at all. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 23:56:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:56:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, *Bubalus bubalis*, native to > India. ... The question is then the halachic status of the American Bison - does it require kisui hadam and can one breed an american bison with cattle (beefalo) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 22:20:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 01:20:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re:, Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Micha Berger wrote: > Zvi Lampel wrote: > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... >: where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in >: fact it implies the opposite R. Micha responded: > Then why would you think that was the reference? My answer: Because you wrote so in reply to me previously: > Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:33:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Micha Berger" > Subject: Re: IS THE WORLD GOOD? ... >> ZL: can you direct me to where the Ramchal, too, says this?) > > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See > , where I > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and > Pischei Chokhmah 30. And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 03:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> References: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160511100415.GC11561@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:20:03AM -0400, H Lampel wrote: : > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I : > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See : > , where I : > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and : > Pischei Chokhmah 30. : And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without : citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Because there we were discussing something about logic and theology in general -- that it has no law of excluded middle. Or in English, the specific rule of paradoxes does not apply to G-d nor the shorashim of creation. And his version of the thesis of zeh le'umas zeh is in pesach 30. (R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) also uses zeh le'umas zeh and the idea that paradox is only prohibited bepo'al, not bemachashavah, to explain eilu va'eilu.) It is also sufficient for this conversation, as it shows that G-d can make a paradox manifest. However, I am still on the hunt for the source of the specific idea I was repeating from R' Aryeh Kaplan, that logic as a whole is a nivra rather than an aspect of Emes. (Work being what it has been the last week and a half, it's a very part time hunt.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 04:52:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asks: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) Google is wonderful. I entered "yoreh deah 28:4", and the third hit brought me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info about who they are) which says: > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) rules that one does not > perform kisuy hadam for a buffalo; this determines it to be a > beheimah. (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been meant. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 08:00:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:00:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160511150044.GE7880@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:52:18AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info : about who they are) which says: : : > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) ... : > (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, : > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years : > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... : Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been : meant. I think that is a list of other species for which the same logic would apply, and not other possible translations of buffalo. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 12:50:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:50:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 14:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5733A635.7040108@sero.name> On 05/11/2016 03:50 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile > "On the day that you are redeemed from the exile". Since lechol hade'os that has not yet happened (for instance, nobody has changed the davening to drop all the requests for the redemption, since it's already happened), it follows that hallel should *not* be said. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 23:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:52:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: A while back I did a shiur which touched on the efficacy of "Keil Maaleh's". I found one source which said to give tzedakah before making a keil maaleh rather than pledging to do so. This sounded extremely rational; deliver rather than promise. Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? 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 Thu May 12 00:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:44:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smartphone on shabbat Message-ID: *Zomet At The Crossroads* *> "Telegramma" - Speaking on a Smartphone on Shabbat */ The Zomet Institute At Zomet Institute we receive many requests on a wide range of subjects. One subject that keeps coming back is: When will you design a cellphone that can be used on Shabbat? This question comes from health and security personnel, who use a special telephone as part of their regular Shabbat routine, and who are looking for a way to use the new devices while keeping desecration of Shabbat to a minimum. We are happy to announce that in the last few weeks Zomet has finished the development of a smartphone "App" that uses a speaking device for Shabbat and where the keys are operated using the principle of "*gramma*" ? indirect action. Touching the screen merely changes the flow of an existing current, and therefore the smartphone can be used when there is a need for it. The " *Telegramma*" App is suitable for use only in cases of dire need, such as for matters related to health, security, or similar situations. The App is suitable for smartphones which operate on Android version 4 or higher, and it operates in conjunction with the Telegramma speaking device. For more details, contact us at www.zomet.org5-6]ssxhjxhhxnngntn/eng. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:31:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:31:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > observances is likely to have a problem with it. She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing shows that in the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:42:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:42:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic Message-ID: I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with the present discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: <<< Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? >>> Here's my guess: What will motivate one to donate beforehand? Emotions run high when the rav gives his Yizkor drasha (or at least, the emotions *ought* to run high). It's hard to get into that frame of mind before the event. This is not like other things where we are sure to prepare in advance, like preparing our matzos or our sukkah. If someone shows up at the Seder without matzos, the ramifications will insure that he will certainly remember next year. But if he arrives at Yizkor (or whenever) and forgot to donate beforehand, he'll simply promise to give after Yom Tov, and this b'dieved eventually became the standard. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57346F3E.5080102@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 06:42 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b > which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects > there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change > this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum > of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to > do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd > spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with > the present discussion That is what logicians say. See the Lewis quote in my .sig. But how do you know that it's true? Chassidus says that G-d *can* make A (which is greater than B, which is greater than C) less than C, if He wants to, because He created logic in the first place, and is not bound by it. Mekom ha'aron is the most famous example. Lewis would undoubtedly say that Chazal's description can't be true, because an object that takes up space can't simultaneously *not* take up any space. An object that has width *must* add to the width of the room in which it lies. But Chazal tell us it didn't. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 17:33:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:33:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." It has been noted that if the problem occurs because the dough is not or cannot be thoroughly kneaded, then flour would be on the inside as well. Reading the words of the ShA HaR leaves no room for any doubt - he was definitely not concerned about flour INSIDE the Matza, ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza. This is what he writes, "In truth there is no Halachic problem with Gebrochts, nevertheless those who are strict deserve a blessing. This stringency is not without reason and one who observes it is not acting in a bizarre manner but is in fact concerned to avoid a Torah prohibition [brings a number of authorities] since the flour may not have been thoroughly baked" [because flour that is baked is denatured and cannot ever become Chamets] "As can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded. Even though the flour INSIDE the Matza is a much more serious problem because it has been protected from the heat of the oven, AND IN OUR CASE THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION ...... " So - back to the Q - is this factually correct? It is clear that the ShAHa is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? and that if so, it is not baked and thereby denatured? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:35:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512153522.GD9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:42:50AM +0000, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic... Because we use logic to understand things. The chisaron is in "understand" not the possibility being discussed. Lemashal, Quantum Logic is very different than the logic we use to think with, and yet, it's still a logic with its own rules. Can you understand how electron X is spin-up or spin-down, and X is spin-left could be true, while the statement electron X is either spin-up and spin-left, or X is spin-down and spin-left might not? And yet, the difference is experimentally provable. Saying that Hashem can violate logic inherently means that some of His Actions are among the non-understandable things about Him. ... : An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic... Nu, so you agree with the Rambam. That "a round triangle" is a nonsense phrase, not describing something that can or cannot be done. Modern studies into logic, which has reveals that there is no one true logical system, have made me more skeptical. OTOH, if Hashem can defy logic, how would we ever be able to use logic to argue the point? Any proof of the position I attributed to the Ramchal and Zev attributes to Chassidus would require ruling out an adherance to logic rather than pro-atively arguing for its defiance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:22:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512152203.GC9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 06:31:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Under the current rules, Yom : Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time.... : While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted : from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which : is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the : Knesset or from the rabanim? The CR's office, in order to reduce chillul Shabbos. IIRC, for a while after the rule change, the RCA advised observing on 5 Iyyar in chu"l anyway, as American O observances wouldn't pose that kind of chilul Shabbos risk. They since changed policy. I suggested that someone may make peace with the fact by noting that having a country where the legal holidays are moved around in order to minimize chillul Shabbos is much of what one is saying Hallel for. But as one blogger put it... When you sit down to learn daf beis, you make a birkhas haTorah but not a siyum. There is what to celebrate in the existence of such a country, but the fact that they need to worry about chilul Shabbos by the masses shows Yom haAtzma'ut is a "birhas haTorah", not a siyum. Or as Rav Dovid Lifshitz put it... There is much to celebrate about YhA. But beyond atzma'ut, the nation needs to find the etzem. The job is only half-done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:08:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:08:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99d163da-fad0-a04f-8f8f-a9be47a769e7@starways.net> On 5/12/2016 1:31 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > > > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > > observances is likely to have a problem with it. > > She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know > how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, > Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a > quick glance at Wikipedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing > shows that in > the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) > > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has > resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) > on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the > change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? I don't know. I suspect the rabbanut, because they were the ones who established the holiday in the first place, but I don't know for certain. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:06:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:06:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah >> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile << -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: <19882.2235ddad.44661f9f@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) in Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 53 >> i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. << >>>> What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. But I will take the occasion to draw your attention to what I have written in the past about Yom Hashoah. This is from Cross-Currents, 2005. (I don't recommend wading through all the comments there though.) http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/05/06/yom-hashoah/ And in 2006, in the comments section to a post by Shira Schmidt [http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/05/04/the-controversy-over-holocaust-falle n-soldiers-terror-victims-memorials/], I wrote this about Yom Atzmaut: --quoting myself-- My mother has cousins ? an elderly couple, not religious ? who lost their only son in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Every year on Yom Hazikaron they cry anew, but they find the abrupt transition to Yom Atzmaut too jarring and cannot find it in themselves to celebrate. The Israeli government tried to set up a neat historical lesson that would take a few weeks each year and go in an orderly progression: 1. Galus Jews go like sheep to the slaughter ? Yom Hashoah 2. In Israel a new Jew is created, the proud Israeli soldier, who is brave and strong. He doesn?t die a helpless victim, he dies a hero, defending his homeland ? Yom Hazikaron 3. All the evil and sorrow of our past is now redeemed with the glorious new day, a proud and strong new young country, the State of Israel ? Yom haAtzmaut. Of course this simple story line has become darkened and more complex with the passage of time. Israel is no longer strong and new and young but weary and battle-scarred. Nowadays Yom Hashoah is commemorated with far more respect for the survivors than was the case in the early days, far more sorrow and far less arrogance and false pride. The Israeli Army is still looked at with pride but more young Israelis try to get out of serving ? a favorite ploy is to feign mental illness. The brave soldiers so lionized in the past are instead looked at today simply as sons and brothers. There is less glory and pride and more sorrow and grief, for all the young lives lost. Nevertheless, of all the institutions of the modern Israeli state, the army is the one most deserving of our respect and gratitude ? in my opinion. Finally, Yom Atzmaut is not looked at, either, the way it was in the past. If you read Yoram Hazony?s book *The Jewish State* ? or look at the soul-searching in the Mizrachi camp after the Gaza withdrawal ? you see that on both ends of the political spectrum, a weariness and wariness have set in, as the State has not lived up to expectations. The Left is in a post-Zionist phase where patriotism and flag-waving are passe and the alleged mistreatment of the Arabs overshadows all else. The Right has seen its messianic expectations dashed and realizes that the State is not yet the Redemption. My mother?s cousins who can?t find it in their hearts to celebrate Yom Atzmaut are not the only ones. Israel needs to rewrite its storyline. -- end of quote -- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 14:57:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:57:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:06pm RnTK wrote: : From: Eli Turkel via Avodah :> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. :> In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the :> Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi :> explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are :> redeemed at the end of the exile : Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. Nor on Chanukah? Besides, what R' Yochananan mishum R' Shim'on ben Yehotzadaq actually says there on that pasuq is that "laylah she'ein mequdash lachag, ein ta'un hallel". Which would also exclude Chanukah. >From context, I would say the gemara is asking why the existence of a holiday qorban in particular is not sufficient to justify Hallel on Pesach Sheini. So RY says, because the night is not muqdash to the qorban hachag. As for Rashi, he is commenting on the quoted pasuq. "The song will be for you -- on the day that you will be redeemed from the galus." "Like in the night which will be santified chag -- like the way you are acustomed to sing on the night which is sanctified chag. And you do not have a nightof chag to demand shirah except the nights of Pesachim, on their eating." Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 12:48:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:48:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512194844.GE9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:31AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The ShA HaRav writes : "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their : surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly : kneaded ...." Mimah-nafshakh the AR is speaing about it being a big enough risk to justify a minhag lehachmir, but not to the level of an issur. The AR writes "Be'emes, ki gam she'eino isur gamur bubarur midina, m"m hamachmir tavo alav berakhah." If it was normal for flour to be present on matzos, it would be a risk one would not be allowed to take. And if it was easy to see, no risk would be legitimate -- efshar levareir! We need to understand his empirical claims accordingly. Not a statement about something blatant that someone would notice without even a formal survey. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 19:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57351578.1080609@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 05:57 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which > Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel > for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before > establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. I'm pretty sure this does exclude any other night-time hallel. That, after all, is the gemara's point in quoting the pasuk in the first place -- to show that there is only one night on which hallel is said, and therefore it is not said on Pesach Sheni. I also don't see the implication that the future holiday's hallel will be said at night. All the pasuk seems to be saying is that there will be a new yomtov on which you will say hallel, as you do on the night that is sanctified for a chag. Yeshayahu is merely citing an example of an occasion when hallel is said, and could easily have cited a different one instead, but he would have had to be more specific, since there are many days on which hallel is said, and many on which it is not. By citing Pesach night as his example, he can get away with saying, essentially, "like on hallel night", which is not ambiguous because there is only one. From this the gemara learns that there is no hallel on Pesach Sheni. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:25:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:25:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is worse Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/search/?s=yom+haatzmaut&sort=1 1. the issue of date changing of YH is dealt with in rabbi grunstein's lecture 2. the issue of saying hallel at all , that some provocatively dismiss outright, is dealt with by rabbi zylberman, appropriately in his talk at the Aguda of Passaic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 23:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 06:20:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt Message-ID: While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day from the end of the British mandate to avoid chillul shabbat so yom haazmaut was always arranged to avoid chillul shabbat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 07:24:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May I presently buy Israeli carrots after the recent Shmita year? Message-ID: <1463149425226.74416@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. Israeli carrots currently being sold in the U.S. (May 2016) at this point can be assumed to no longer be peiros shevi'is and may be purchased lichatchila. In fact, purchasing Israeli products is commendable as it benefits the Israeli economy. However, if the carrots do not have a reliable kosher certification, one must separate the relevant tithes (Terumos and Ma'aseros). This year is the first year of the shemita cycle. This means that ma'aser sheini must be separated. The ma'aser sheini portion can be redeemed by transferring its kedusha (elevated status) to a coin. Even a nickel may be used, provided the ma'aser sheini portion (approximately 9% of the package of carrots) is worth more than a peruta, approximately 3 or 4 cents. For the procedure to separate Terumah and Maaser, see https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/separating-terumah-and-maaser/. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 08:52:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:52:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) 2 questions. 1. What is the heter to free the kids? (it's a torah prohibition to free them) 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha and kids thru her (eved ivri) He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:07:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:07:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] on a role for a 'secular' Israel Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/856920/rabbi-moshe-taragin/secular-zionism-for-religious-jews/#.VzVBhX-h6_c.mailto Very good explanation to MTA boys on how to look at the zionist enterprise and how to view it in the scope haskala, brit sinai vs moriah , kiddush hashem etc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:44:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:44:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: >>>What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. ----some people need to ask themselves why asking a halachic question provokes them. maybe the 'slyness' was pointing out that an issur can only be perceived as assur by those who believe said action is assur , not by those who feel act in question is muttar/mitzvah. clearly i couldn't ask why people who commemorate those two days don't realize that it's actually assur.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:18:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:18:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> Message-ID: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> On 05/13/2016 11:52 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer > who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce > children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular > Jews) > > 2 questions. > > 1. What is the heter to free the kids? > (it's a torah prohibition to free them) It's also prohibited to have relations with a shifcha, but Chazal permitted a mamzer to do so for this purpose. > 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he > did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them > (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? > parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos > 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha > and kids thru her (eved ivri) > He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship > with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) Why do you say that? On the contrary, "veyatz'ah ishto imo" means his wife goes in with him, i.e. lives with him at his owner's expense. And *only* a married eved ivri is allowed a shifcha. The simple and expected case is that he loves and gets along with *both* of his wives, and wants to stay with both. > The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Again, because she is his wife and they are his children. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:24:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:39 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted > from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which > is not the actual anniversary. > Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day... RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out on. That the Rabbanut moved that day forward or backward to avoid Chilul Shabbos was not significant. The day that Israel was declared a state is the day to say Hallel (and not to say Tachnun). One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:44:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:44:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160513184458.GC10043@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 06:24:08PM +0000, Harry Maryles wrote: : RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out : on... Although RAS was niftar before the telecom explosion that caused much of the RCA to shift position. As RGS recently wrote about R/Dr Aaron Levine of Flatbush : In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:54:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:54:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> Message-ID: <063701d1ad48$d0e0f7b0$72a2e710$@com> RZS writes ...How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? You are claiming a tremendous chidush l'halacha - that these are actually his kids. Do you have anyone who says this? It w appear not, bc they are not mityaches acharav (as a proof - we see that they are avodim, and not mamzers) mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 04:46:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 07:46:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> The justification for the shiur of a geris for kesmamim on clothing is that any spot that is a kegeris or less in area could be from a crushed parasite. So the kesem proves nothing. Also (Niddah 58b) points out that they couldn't make a gezeirah that would mean she would never be tahor leba'alah. I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? For comparison: Tosafos (58b, "ukidvarav") say that if she were infested with many ma'akhalos, one could be toleh even a larger kesem on that. We do not hold like Tosafos. The AhS (YD 190:18) pins that on these bugs being loners. They don't scamper in pairs. Multiple crushed lice would make multiple kesamim. Alternatively (se'if 27, in the name of the Rosh se'if 6) lo pelug chakhamim. Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. (A ma'akholes is apparently too common or too unnoticable to warrant needing to know if there was one around.) And the AhS (se'if 31) says that because pishpeshin can't be found where he lives, this din doesn't apply. This is based on Rashi ("R"N") saying "there are places where pishpeshin are found, and in those places..." Would people living in modern settings have to say the same about the ma'akholes? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:19:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:19:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which > case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, > pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've > unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than > lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the > ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. The bedbugs that I had seen in both the US and Israel are significantly larger than lice, and when filled with blood, hold a lot more. Furthermore, bed bugs have a very distinct odor (at least when there is a significant infestation) that many people can smell. -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:32:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 08:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57386C6F.6070906@sero.name> > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a > place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, > that this is a likely alternative explanation. Bedbugs are back, and can strike anywhere, and the first indication of their presence, long before one actually sees them, is the kesamim they leave behind. I wonder if "maacholes" actually means bedbug, but even if it doesn't the same principle applies. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 07:12:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:12:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live > in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice > and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. > > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah > didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and > therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came > from? I've always figured on the second of these two. My reasoning is based on the halachos of where the kesem was found. If we are going to make logical estimates "about where the kesem came from", then we shouldn't care about whether or not the cloth can be mekabel tumah. Who cares about the size of the cloth, or the color of the cloth, or the material of the cloth? But the system was set up such that if the cloth is not m'kabel tumah, then the kesem can't be tamay either. And so too for the size of the kesem. I had a lot of trouble understanding - and even accepting - the above, but when I realized that without hargasha everything becomes d'rabanan, it began to make sense. (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche to set it up however they wanted.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:25:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:25:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mazer Message-ID: <> There is a major discussion if one has a child who is a mamzer whether he has fulfilled the mtzvah of pru u-revu or not. Similarly is there a mitzva for a mamazer to marry a mamzerut to have children (see minchat chinuch, har tzvi, kovetz shiurim) BTW I saw an opinion that if a mamzer marries a shifcha and has a child he doesn't fulfil; pru u-revi but he does fulfill le-shevet yezarah see a discussion by RAL on pru urevu vs leshevet yetzirah (Hebrew) http://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D6%B6%D7%91%D6%B6%D7%AA-%D7%90 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:43:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Mordechai Cohen asked: <<< The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) >>> My understanding is that if a Jew has relations with a non-Jewess and the resulting children convert to Judaism, he DOES fulfill p'ru uv'vu through them. (Maybe that's only in the case of a non-Jewush man who converts together with his children? I'm not sure.) <<< He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha ... The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? >>> No, it's not the *posuk* who refers to the shifcha and children that way. The posuk is merely quoting the man. It is the man who referred to them that way, and given his love for them, I'd expect nothing less. One might argue that he wrong for feeling that love and/or for expressing it, but that's irrelevant: He does feel that way, and he did verbalize it, and the Torah is merely quoting him. My second answer is more technical. Hebrew has no word for wife. His words could just as easily be translated as "I love my woman", which I presume you'll concede to be accurate. As far as "my children", well, he just wasn't being very clear. He didn't mean "my halachic children", but merely "my genetic children". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:43:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 01:43:44 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? Message-ID: It seems R Micha has erred by not recognising that the risk is NOT about whether there is flour, of course there is flour - as the SAHaR says 'behold we see with our own eyes' that there is flour on the Matza the risk is whether the flour that is certainly there on many Matzos - has been toasted adequately to be denatured and prevented from becoming Chamets when exposed to water. Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57389966.5020706@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 10:12 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts > in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha > d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it > is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only > works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche > to set it up however they wanted.) This is not true. Mid'oraisa tzuras hapesach works in a reshus horabim de'oraisa. That one can't fix a r"hr simply by putting up four poles and four strings is mid'rabanan. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 11:45:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> From: M Cohen via Avodah R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) Mordechai cohen >>>>> There is no "shifcha" today. But a mamzer can marry a non-Jewish woman and have children with her, and later those children can convert to Judaism. I'm not saying he is halachically allowed to marry a non-Jewish woman but the fact is, if he does so, his children will not be mamzerim. Similarly a kohen who is a challal can avoid having children who are challalim by having children with a non-Jewish woman, and later they can convert and be kosher Jews. True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be cha llalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid the consequences of sin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 16:59:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:59:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 02:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such > eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was > tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid > the consequences of sin. That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no reason not to encourage him to do it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 01:32:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:32:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: On 5/16/2016 2:59 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one > we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually > forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no > reason not to encourage him to do it. Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 02:58:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 05:58:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516095809.GA31988@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:43:44AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the : facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour : is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. ... only because you're asking about the problem being prevalent enough for gebrochts to be assur. Whereas I am arguing that by context, we know the SAhR's "harbei" means prevalent enough to be worth a chumerah. And that kind of frequency would require a broad survey. Not sure if that qualifies as efshar levareir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 04:57:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:57:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten bam) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 06:18:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> R' Micha - thanks for the m"makom - still have to look it up. RMB also asked - Are you asking why a man might want to have children other than his chiyuv to do so? Ans. I am aware that a man can (and might want to) raise children not his own. Ie adoption. My question was that R Tarfon seems to imply that his eitza is more than just adopting and raising children not his own. I didn't (and still don't) understand why his eitza is better - they are not mityaches to him in any way. RZS's answer is not true. BTW, thanks to Reb Google, see article on this subject (though it does not extensively deal w/ my questions) [Posted as part of the thread or -micha] Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 10:41:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't > think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah Kamoha) seems to disagree. On 05/16/2016 07:57 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: >> "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not >> yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" > The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children > are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The > Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with > the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks > nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten > bam) The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) But the proof that your children by a nochris are nochrim like her is from the pasuk that says they are not your children. That pasuk doesn't *say* that they're nochrim, but the gemara deduces that since they have no Jewish parent what else could they be? The pasuk itself is not concerned with their status, since the avera it says they'll do is avoda zara, which is forbidden also to nochrim, and thus if they were your children this would be a matter of concern to you. (Your obligation of chinuch would surely apply to your non-Jewish children, if it were possible for you to have any; you wouldn't have to teach them not to eat treif or break shabbos, but surely you would have to teach them not to serve avoda zara, and thus it should upset you that their mother will teach them to serve it.) By saying that this is not something you should be upset about, the pasuk is telling you that they are not your children, and thus their idolatry and subsequent damnation is none of your business. On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > RZS answer is not true. And your proof is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 22:14:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: On Monday, May 16, 2016, Zev Sero wrote: > On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't >> think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. > Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar > Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. > The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt > http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah > Kamoha) seems to disagree. You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being your children. I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they are your children or not. Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 13:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <5bc7f3.13131e6f.446b89a5@aol.com> > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone.[--old TK] AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben ben1456 at zahav.net.il >>>>> But I think the son of a challal is a challal, and his son, and his son, forever. And the daughter of a challal cannot marry a kohen. So his granddaughter (son of his son), his great-granddaughter and so on, can never marry kohanim -- at least until so many generations have passed that no one remembers the family are challalim. Whereas if he has a son with a non-Jewish woman that son is not a challal. He's also not a Jew, but he can become one. And the daughter of a ger can marry a kohen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:13:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 23:13:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben On 5/15/2016 8:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:34:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:34:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A20C2.2050400@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 03:14 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. > The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with > their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, > and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's > property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to > exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, > but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that > of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) > > You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being > your children. Neither the pasuk nor the gemara says anything about their yichus. All it discusses is their status. The Pasuk says they belong to their mother's owner, therefore the gemara says they are avadim. There's no chain of logic involved here; the gemara is merely restating the pasuk. That is very unlike the gemara's next case, where the pasuk doesn't directly address the children in question at all, and its indirect statement is that they are not yours, from which the gemara infers that they must be nochrim. > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. > Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as > a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. 1) Who says a Jew can't be related to a non-Jew? The gemara's order of logic is *not* "they're nochrim, therefore they're not your children", but rather "they're not your children, therefore they're nochrim". 2) Avadim *are* Jews, so who says they can't be related to Jews? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:31:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 05:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from > other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:57:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516215742.GC21112@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:27:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: : shabasos limnucha : moadim l'simcha : chagim uzmanim l'sason : : I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are... : My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, : because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are : Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they : the same in regards to Sason? Apparently they are different aspects of the same thing. As in, "Chag haMatzos haZeh, zeman Cheiruseinu." There is a duality between zeman va'eis, as in a beris being be'ito uvizmano. Quoting what I wrote in v15n74: > ... RAKotler has a beautiful vort on the > difference. Beqitzur to the point of omitting the beauty: eis = a > point in the time sequence of a process. (RSRH would probably relate > "eis" to "ad".) Be'ito, when the baby is ready. Zeman = a point in > time according to a scedule. In this case, the morning of day 8 (or > day 9 when a safeiq Shabbos situation arises). I wrote a vort for MmD > on eis, zeman, qeitz, yamim, shanim, and Jewish time in general at > . In that vertl, I suegges that a qeitz is where the zeman and eis for the end coincide. Thus, "miqeitz shenasayim yamim" is when the predetermined number of years in jail were up AND when Yoseif was developmentally ready. Shanim and yamim. Circular time and linear time. A chag is a point in circular time, /ch-v-g/ related to /`-v-g/ to draw a circle. It's a sacred eis. But every chag coincides with a sacred zeman. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 23rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination Fax: (270) 514-1507 stifle others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 15:02:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:02:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516220214.GD21112@aishdas.org> I feil to see the problem. Nosein ta'am and bitul beshishim go hand-in-hand. RMF yses this argument in a letter to R' Pinechas Teitz to explain why whiskey can be made in sherry casks; since stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6, there is no problem of ta'am. You would obviously tased a mixture of 6 parts water to one part wine. Since qitniyos are batel berov, why would there be reason to say that a pot can becomes "peasdik"? (To quote a subject line from a month ago.) Are we afraid that the volume of the walls of the pot exceed the volume the pot holds? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 22:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:35:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> Message-ID: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No issur involved. 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? On 5/16/2016 11:31 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters > are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim > like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:34:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be :> declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? : Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one : can't accept it in many other cases A little more complicated, since discussing chumeros in mamzeirus raises an issue distinct to mamzeirus. "Kivan denitme'ah, nitme'ah" is a gezeiras hakasuv which makdes resolving mamzeirus in many cases beyond chumerah -- altogether needless. Being born of a father other than the husband does not make these people mamzeirim altogether. More than that, the gemara (Qiddushin 71a) continues telling you one SHOULD NOT reveal the families in which mamzeirus is nitme'ah. It is therefore consistent to refuse DNA testing for mamzeirus (in these cases), while believing that DNA testing is in principle halachically valid evidence. Part of a general reluctance to gather eviudence. However, I would think we could use DNA testing to help a shetuqi or asufi, to free him for the shadow of mamzeirus or at least allow him to marry vadai mamzeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 08:04:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:04:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517150411.GD8481@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 05:54:21PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote: : Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. : While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of : yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? Exactly. Better to use a DNA test to make a shetuqi or asufi either kosher yichus or a vadai mamzer than leaving him a shetuqi or asifu. So I assume in such cases, we should use the DNA test; either result is better than none. (And it's not a kivan shenitme'ah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 09:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 5/17/2016 8:35 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No > issur involved. But then their sons are challalim. > 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to > marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a > convert or divorcee)? Zona, with a zayin. I know one couple who, when they went to get married, were told by their rabbi that she was a virgin. That he didn't want to hear about what she'd done or not done. Granted, she wasn't marrying a kohen, but I guess there's a chazaka. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 12:54:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:54:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:06:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Areivim wrote: : Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people whose values contradict : the Torah is not a hillul hashem.... : As RZS has often said here, kiddush hashem does not mean "good PR" And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul hasheim because CH *does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive Peloni. Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. The gemara literally defines qiddush hasheim has good PR. To tweak that first quoted sentence: Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people because they hold values that contradict the Torah is not a chillul hasheim. That isn't you pushing them away from avodas Hashem, it's them a natural downward spiral. However, lowering that estaeem among people whose values contradict the Torah's for other reasons is NOT "sheyehei sheim shamayim mis'aheiv al yadekha." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:30:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > Peloni. Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a *kiddush* haShem. > Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct value system. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:24:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:24:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> Message-ID: <573B7DFB.1050504@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > Btw, thanks to reb google, see article on this subject (though it does not > extensively deal w my questions) > > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf Very thorough, but I see one enormous flaw -- the author takes it for granted that slavery is barred by dina demalchusa. This may be true in some countries, e.g. the UK, where the common law has held for centuries that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in, and thus that any slave who sets foot in England automatically becomes free. But it remains to be established that this is the case in all countries, particularly in the USA, where the 13th amendment only bans *involuntary* servitude. I am unaware of any law in the USA that would prevent a person from voluntarily becoming the property of another, and after _Lawrence_ and _Obergefell_ such laws, if they exist, may even be unconstitutional! If so, then the shifcha method could work here. There may well also be other countries where this is the case. And in Israel it might be possible to introduce legislation in the Knesset to explicitly legalise voluntary avdus, with appropriate safeguards to prevent it being abused. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:51:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 00:51:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't > include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we > make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the severity of the laws of taharot. He says that even though that reason no longer applies in our current circumstances, we can't nullify the gezerah of ketamim altogether. But we certainly don't need to extend it beyond the specifications of the original gezerah. So a ketem smaller than a k'gris does not make a woman niddah, even nowadays when such a stain cannot plausibly be attributed to a ma'akolet. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:47:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. : : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. Where does it say that? And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah by how clean some TC's frock is? : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation is not limited to those peers. : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive : >Peloni. : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a : *kiddush* haShem. ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off to Tzeduqim? Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. : : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct : value system. You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such limitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517220836.GA31726@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51:47AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. : Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the : reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the : severity of the laws of taharot... So the CS holds that kegeris is the limit of the gezeirah, and not just part of the general "you can be toleh kesamim on anything plausible". Pishpishin and the shiur of a keturmos (the size of a bean called a "lupine"?) *is* considered part of that general rule. To the extent that the Rambam doesn't give it special mention. Which brings me to the next question... How does the CS know that kegeris and blaming a ma'akholes is different in kind than the rest of the sugya? We could deduce from the Rambam, but that just shifts my question up some centuries. For example, the Yereim says that the shiur is based on the lice of your region, and not the same kegeris (about a nickle) of chazal. Of course (given the above), the CS does say the shiur is a geris, not tied to the size of engourged lice. And does that mean that the Yereim (and the mi'ut of contemporary posqim who hold like him) would say there is no shiur today? BTW, the PT, #12 says besheim the Raavad that there is no shiur if the kesem is black, since a ma'akheles stain would always be rad. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 05:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. > : > : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > > Where does it say that? It's completely obvious, and doesn't need saying. It simply can't be otherwise. > And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah > by how clean some TC's frock is? Apparently so. Otherwise what guide do you have? Why do you assume pagans esteem cleanliness, when for every one that does so there's probably another who esteems filth and despises cleanliness? > : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, > > : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > > The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation > is not limited to those peers. But non-peers may well think highly of him for it. Think of the "game" community that has formed online in the last 20 years, and what sort of traits they admire and despise in a person. A reputation that would embarass a t"ch's peers would be lionised in those circles. > : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > : >Peloni. > > : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and > : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a > : *kiddush* haShem. > > ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off > to Tzeduqim? Then it's a good bet that it's a kiddush haShem. > Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my > capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. Actually the gemara's lashon is may *his* Lord forgive him. But it's obviously being said by people who know what Hashem's standards are. > : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. > : > : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct > : value system. > > You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such > limitation. It *has* to have it, because we have voluminous *evidence* of what KH/CH is, and it's emphatically *not* that sheim shomayim should be beloved by those "who call bad good and good bad, who establish darkness as light and light as darkness, bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:57:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> Who is the audience to chilul hasheim in Yesodei haTorah 5:11? "Haberios". Ad sheyimtz'u HAKOL meqlsin oso, ve'ohavim oso, umis'avim lema'asav. Harei zeh qideish as hasheim... "Hakol" is all who? Not all the berios, since that's all he (repeatedly) describes as the observers? -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:35:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:35:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish Message-ID: A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels that there is no health problem can eat the two together -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:32:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:32:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: <> RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea of shifcha today is ridiculous -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:28:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:28:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 05:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:28:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735391/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/eating-fish-and-meat-together/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 04:10:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573C4DA9.9060307@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 05:28 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they >> are your children or not. > > Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> > > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Of course marriage is an occasion when one is *interested* in yichus, just as one is interested in health, character, and all kinds of other things; would you say that "health refers to marrriage, and might have nothing to do with topics like strength, diet, medical treatment, or life expectancy"?! -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 07:27:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:27:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> RBW asked.. L'maaseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a zona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? Ans. Yes, all BT girls are asked 'as discreetly as possible' if they are mutar to a cohen or not when in the shidduch parsha. (bc rov are not eligible) L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must look towards FFB shidduchim This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they bring it up otherwise) Some stats: The average age Americans lose their virginities is 17.1 for both men and women The CDC also reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females aged 20 to 24. That number drops below 5 percent aged 25 to 29 Statistically, if you didn't have sex in your teen years, you're in the minority. The interesting/disturbing problem is that many (rov?) BT cohens are not probably not cohens. (and actually w be mutar to a zona, mutar l'tamai l'masim, etc) If the BT cohens mother grew up post 1960s/70s/80s or so (and became BT post high school), it's probably a chazakah that she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. It's unlikely that the BT boy is willing to ask his mother if she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. (and even if she says she wasn't, is she be believed against the chazaka?) I personally heard from a major chareidi posek that for this reason a cohen s l'chatchila not go out w a BT cohens daughter, if the parents were married before they became frum and she was a teenager post 1960s/70s/80s or so (bc of the possibility that she is actually the daughter of a chalalah who was forbidden to marry her father) As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 09:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:28pm IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they :> are your children or not. : :> Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. : : Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage... I assume you mean: Yichus refers to a persons lineage WRT whom they and their descendents may marry. Do I understand correctly? : It might have nothing to do : with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between : parents and child. Is there a source for making such a chiluq, or are you just posing a hava amina for discusion. I was told lehalkhah ulemasseh that an adoptive child's honoring his parents is a qiyum of kavod harav, not kibud av va'eim. So for KAvA, some kind of genetic parentage is involved. At 12:32pm IDT, RET continued (on a second aspect of the discussion): : RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea : of shifcha today is ridiculous I would like to have the grapevine confirmed on this one. But in any case... When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and shevuyim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:02:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> Message-ID: <573CA023.104@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 10:27 AM, M Cohen wrote: > L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must > look towards FFB shidduchim > > This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. > > At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they > bring it up otherwise) But what about chalalos? An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married. Who keeps track of that, let alone after several generations? > As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens > are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Not just BTs, as I pointed out above. And indeed many poskim do say that this is why our cohanim only duchen on yomtov; since they have no yichus, and can't know whether they're really entitled to duchen, they should avoid doing so except when it would be blatantly obvious, and would thus cause a pegam on their family. (This is a based on a gemara that a safek cohen would collect terumah only once a year, to keep up his name.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573CA023.104@sero.name> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> <573CA023.104@sero.name> Message-ID: <0dcd01d1b128$28a623c0$79f26b40$@com> RZS wrote ..An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married.. Ans. But these FFB girls DO have a chezkas kashrus. My point was that todays female BTs, and male BTs descended from cohanim don't have that chazaka anymore Mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:01:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:01:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:35:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on : yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not : eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels : that there is no health problem can eat the two together In terms of acharonim, it's the Yad Efraim (#116) CS (shu"t #101) prohibiting and the MA (OC 173) permitting. The MA says nishtanah hateva. The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which we don't eat anymore. 2- The Rambam omits it as he does any other piece of medical advice that doesn't work. According to R' Avraham b haRambam, nishtanah hateva means the scientific theory has changed. WHch would make this idea a paralel to the MA's reasoning. The YE lists numerous posqim who prohibit, appealing to authority rather than giving a sevara But I think there is more to the story than included in this report. It's non-trivial to tell people -- especially Ashkenazim -- to follow the Rambam against both the SA (including the Rama) and commonly accepted practice. I am not questioning the conclusion, I just think we are missing critical pieces of the argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573CA7CB.5070500@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 12:51 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and > shevuyim? That's discussed at length in the article that was forwarded. Basically since avdus is a matter of dinei momonos it would seem to depend on dina demalchusa. But my question is on the metzius in the USA; I question the assumption that voluntary slavery is illegal here. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 11:36:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:36:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> References: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> <573BA37C.9070402@sero.name> <20160518174122.GE6953@aishdas.org> <573CAB65.1060509@sero.name> <2e7c1df5b9ef9931f5bc64b483eaeff8@aishdas.org> <573CAD8E.2030905@sero.name> <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160518183641.GA3694@aishdas.org> Two more examples of qiddush hasheim being about behavior in front of anyone. 1- Geneivas aku"m through circumvention is a lack of qiddush hasheim (R' Aqiva, BQ 113a) 2- Orechos Tzadiqim, sha'ar haEmes, calls getting the nations to say "Berikh E-lohehon diYhuda'i!" to be a qidush hasheim. The example is from Shimon ben Shetach requiring his talmidim to return a gem to a Yishmaeli when it was lifnim mishuras hadin. (TY BM 2:5, vilna 8a) (Recall this is pre-Islam, the Yishmaeli was aku"m.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 01:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:26:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or even leaves the family. One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive family and biology contributes nothing. Though not the topic of the shiur if the mother is a shifcha or a nonJew the father (who stays with the family) is entitled to all rights of a father including kibud Av independent of any halachot of yichus. He is not worse than an adoptive parent (my conclusion not discussed in the shiur) The only exception to this rule is sitting shiva. One is required to sit shiva for the biological father and may sit shiva for the adoptive father. When questioned he explained that not sitting shiva for a father even if he did nothing for the family might hint of mamzerut -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 21:32:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Adar Jacob via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:32:58 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 02:59:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 05:59:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160519095946.GD26914@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Adar Jacob wrote: : As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting : it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov : for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. This isn't an issue of rov. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that kivan shenitma, nitma -- a family in which the mamzeirus got forgotten must be left that way. One is *prohibited* against digging up lost claims of mamzeirus. I think of it in similar terms to how an afflicted person isn't a metzorah until the kohein says so. Here too, the biological parentage is the primary factor in determining mamzeirus, but apparently not the only one. We must also be aware of that parentage. And if hot, the person isn't halachically a mamzer and we wrong him by finding out his biological state and making him subject to the strictures. It is only a foundling (asufi) or someone who can't identify who his father is (shetuqi) who are *derabbanan* held under doubt. (De'oraisa, only a definite mamzer is assur.) Not cases of needing to dig up history of people who think they're kosher. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 26th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking Fax: (270) 514-1507 control just a way of abandoning one's self? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:15:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:15:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573DA051.10607@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 01:01 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including > > 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which > we don't eat anymore. Or perhaps we (i.e. middle Europeans) *do* eat this species but the Rambam (in Egypt) didn't and was unaware of it. I know the two Aris have identified it as a species that exists only in the Euphrates, and thus is eaten only in Turkey and Iraq, but that's not information the CS could have had. It could just as easily have been a species that also lives in the Danube, but not in the Nile or the Mediterranean. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:12:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:12:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Death Message-ID: <1463667145403.74543@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Vayikra 21:5 They shall not make a bald spot on their head, nor shall they shaveoff the corners of their beard and they shall not make a wound in their flesh. Heathenism, both ancient and modern, tends to associate religion with death. The kingdom of God begins only where man ends. Death and dying are the main manifestations of divinity. For, in the heathen view, the deity is a god of death, not of life; a god who kills and never revives, who sends death and its harbingers - sickness and poverty - so that men, mindful of his power and their own helplessness, should fear him. For this reason heathen temples stand beside graves, and the foremost place of heathen priests is beside a corpse. There, where the eyes are dimmed and the heart is broken, they find fertile soil for the dissemination of their religion. He who bears on his flesh a mark of death - a symbol of death's power to conquer all - and thus remains ever mindful of death, performs the religious act par excellence, and this especially befits a priest and his office. Not so are the priests in Judaism, because not so is the Jewish concept of God and not so is the Jewish religion. God, Who instructs the Kohein regarding his position in Israel, is a God of life. The most exalted manifestation of God is not in the power of death, which crushes strength and life. Rather, God reveals Himself in the liberating and vitalizing power of life, which elevates man to free will and eternal life. Judaism teaches us not how to die but how to live, so that even in life we may overcome death, an unfree existence, enslavement to physical things, and moral weakness. Judaism teaches us how to live every moment of earthly life as a moment of eternal life in the service of God; how thus to live every moment of a life marked by moral freedom, a life of thought and will, creativity and achievement, and also pleasure. This is the teaching to which God has dedicated His Sanctuary and for whose service He has consecrated the Kohanim, who teach the people the "basis and direction of life" __________________________________________________________________ Based on this may one conclude that the present day obsession with death that one finds in some Islamic circles is a reversion to heathenism? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:54:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:54:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In continuation of the topic of kibud av ve-em from yevamot 22b that there is ni issur to curse a wicked father rambam hilchot mamrim explains that this applies only the punishment the Tur disagrees and says that one must honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva others distinguish and say that one must honor a wicked father only while he is alive see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva R Zilberstein brings the Zecher Shlomo (Lech Lecha) and the Chida (Devash Le-phi 1:39) that therefore Avraham owed no honor to his father Terach once Terach handed him over to Nimrod. R Zilberstein further brought the Maharam Shick that one who is involved (metapel) in a mitzvah is the owner of the mitzvah and whoever works and establishes a mitzvah is the one to make the arrangements. Thus the one who actively rears the child is the "owner" of the child and gets to make the decisions and not the biological parent who is not around. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573DA738.2000201@sero.name> On 05/19/2016 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation > of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or > even leaves the family. > One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's > marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. > R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has > absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the > adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em > applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that > abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive > family and biology contributes nothing. Sorry, this is contrary to halacha. Kibbud av va'em is not connected to hakarat hatov; it's a duty that one owes to ones parents *regardless* of whether they did one good or bad. Even a mamzer owes his parents kibud, although they did him the worst evil. Even Avraham Avinu, whose father handed him over to be burned, owed him kibbud av. An adoptive "parent" is only owed hakarat hatov (and kevod rabbo if he taught him torah) and therefore is only owed it if he actually did good and not bad. An abusive adoptive parent is owed nothing. This is not subject to any machlokes, thus there is no room for different opinions. Someone who says otherwise is simply wrong. I found an answer to my speculation that a Jew's child by a shifcha might be considered his child. It's not so. An eved has no yichus at all, not even to his mother(!) let alone his father. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 06:37:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:37:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to > do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections > between parents and child RZS: > What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? > Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Yichus may of course have different meanings in different contexts. The first mishna in the fourth perek of Kiddushin, Asara Yuchasin, very strongly connects yichus to marriage. The mishna lists ten halachic categories of personal status (my translation of "yichus") , and then immediately details the connection of these statuses to the permissibility of marriage Indeed it is clear that according to this mishna, a *very fundamental implication* of yichus is whom can one marry halachically, Putting this more strongly it seems that the mishna is defining ten halachic "marriageability" categories (yuchasin), making marriageability a *defining characteristic* of yichus. This is most likely what RET had in mind. In the framework of this mishna, RZS' statement "What does yichus have to do with marriage?Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less." is untenable.Yichus defines whom you can marry. When the gemara states "bno min min hashifcha umin hanachrit u eino mityaches acharav" it is saying, as we know, that halachically the child of a male Jew and a female slave or a non-Jewish woman is not his child; there is no genealogical connection ("yichus") between them. This is the sense of yichus that RZS apparently favors, but is a meaning of yichus very different from that in the above cited mishna. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 03:02:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:02:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I am bringing in more detail the story told by R Zilberstein. He gives out notes before the shiur and so this is all in print if anyone is interested A man divorced his wife after a nasty settlement without leaving any mezonot for the wife or their daughter. Later the woman married again and had a new happy family and the new husband raised the daughter from the first marriage supplying all her needs while the biological father had no contact with his daughter A few days before the daughter's marriage the father shows up holding an invitation upset that the adoptive father is listed as the father of the kallah and the biological father isn't mentioned at all. He screamed is the husband of your mother really your father? Though he had no contact with his daughter he described the shame he had with his friends and demanded that they print a new invitation with himself listed as the father of the bride The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father of the bride. Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to have his name listed on the invitation. The daughter returned to her father with the psak of R Zilberstein and the father remarked that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also needs to participate in buying an apartment. R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the biological father is listed. He was not sure whether the language should be "be abuha" or "be nasa" . The first would be a lie since she didn't live with her father but the second language is used only for an orphaned bride. His preferred remedy was to leave that phrase out completely. Again anyone who wants to see the Hebrew original can contact me -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:12:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:12:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573F3781.9080405@sero.name> On 05/20/2016 06:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that > the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. In other words, her obligation of kibud av va'em is to her real father, not to the one who raised her, but this obligation doesn't include putting him on her wedding invitation, for the reason explained later. > Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her > up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the > dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father > of the bride. I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by the father, but not in this case). > Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to > have his name listed on the invitation. [...] the father remarked > that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter > returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz > they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also > needs to participate in buying an apartment. Again, the term "to be considered the father" makes no sense here; can money make someone a father or not a father?! If he's not the father how can any amount suddenly make him one, and why are they haggling over the amount? Rather the issue here was not at all whether he's the father. Of course he is. The issue here was who is the host who is making the wedding and inviting people to it. And that is the person who is paying, not just for the actual affair, but also the expenses that enable the affair to happen, i.e. the apartment, without which there would be no shidduch. It appears from this psak that if he is willing to pay this the bride and her adoptive father may not refuse! And that would be because he is after all the father, and thus has the *right* to host his daughter's wedding, if only he is willing to do so. > R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological > father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the > biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but > when he is alive the biological father is listed. I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! And the fact is that she is forbidden to his relatives, and *permitted* to her adoptive father's relatives. (In fact it used to be common for someone who raised an orphan to arrange a marrriage for him or her with one of his own children. I even know of a case nowadays where this happened.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:18:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:18:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Surely prevention of marriage with (forbidden) relatives is applicable whether the biological father is or is not alive? On 20 May 2016 at 11:02, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in > order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not > alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the > biological father is listed. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 13:00:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:00:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: see http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ and especially http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful for this is also greater. also http://www.lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] The children may be identified when called to the Torah and in formal documents as the son or daughter of those who raised them, and the normal restrictions of *yihud* (which generally allows unsupervised and close contact with only biological parents, siblings and children) is not applicable to adoptive families, whose members interact as a biological family would. This is far more than transporting halakhic forms (like not addressing one?s adoptive parents by their first names) to the adoptive family. It is an expression of a new halakhic reality, so to speak. obviously laws of mourning are different between a biological parent and an adoptive parent Rabbi Soloveitchik insisted that there is a *kiyyum* of the mitzvah of *avelut* even when there is no halakhic obligation to mourn the specific individual. He drew this conclusion from the ruling that ?Where there is a case of a deceased who has left no mourners to be com?forted, ten worthy men should assemble at his placeall seven days of the mourning period and the rest of the people should gather about them [to comfort them]. And if the ten cannot stay on a regular basis, others from the community may replace them.? It was for this reason that the Rav regularly advised children to mourn the adopted parents who had raised them. If there was no * hiyyuv *[obligation]* ha-mitzvah*, there was none-the-less a *kiyyum ha-mitzvah*. BTW a friend of mine told me that there is a psak of R Schacter that if the parent abused the child and it would be a great stress on the child to mourn for the parent then he is exempt from sitting shiva -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 11:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:20:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I found an extended article on how to fix a mazer (tihur mamzerim) from avnei hamakom volume 15 from Rav Oren Zwick As to marrying a shifcha he nrings that minchat yotzchak outlawed it because of dina demalchuta Rab Breish (Chelkat Yaakov) - in a series of letters between them disagrees. In fact it is suggested that in Israel marriage is conducted by the rabbinate and halachically they should be able to allow a shifcha. It is stressed that this is on condition that it be done officially-legally by the Israeli rabbinate. He also discusses other options and ends with a reference to Yevamot 68b and bet shmuel 2:18 in the name os sefer charedim that a mamzer can't live more than 12 months > I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the > original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is > inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by > the father, but not in this case). I am confused. I emphatically stated that anyone who wants to see the original to contact me and I would send it. Why suspect what is written when one can check it yourself The words that R Zilberstein uses are harei she - "avi hakallah" bnidan didan hu ha-abba ha-choreg Obviously the adoptive father is not the "real" father is considered like the real father and is the one who should be listed as the father in the invitation > I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the > father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! Be-kewtuba raui lichtov et shemo shel ha-av ha-amiti hedei she-lo tezei taut u-machshla be-nisue krovim. Umnam be-yetoma kotvim et shemo shel mi she-gidel otah aval ke=she-ha-abba chai yesh lichtov et shemo I again strongly suggest that anyone who wants to challenge my interepation of the psak look at the original and not guess based on his knowledge what 2 major poskim state. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 21:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] ============================================== My general take on this topic is that many halakhists bent over backwards to find solutions to the adoption problems mentioned (e.g. yichud). Perhaps it was due to the need for orphans to find homes or the human drive for childless couples to have families(especially when dealing with non-Jewish adoptions)? I never found much written about the meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times influenced the decisions. 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 Sun May 22 16:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 19:12:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah Message-ID: Pesachim 35a tells us that ?things which can come to chimutz, a person can fulfill his chiyuv of matza with them; this excludes those which come not to chimutz, but to sirchon.? This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: > Lo sochal alav chametz > Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos > Do not eat chametz with it > For seven days you will eat matzos Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. After all, if the pasuk had said, "Do not eat carrots; you must eat beef," would that lead us to conclude that carrots and beef have similar definitions? However, the truth is that the phrases don't *need* to save any logical connection. If Torah Sheb'al Peh says that this is how Torah Sheb'ksav chose to connect the definitions of chametz and matzah, it's just one of many similar cases. (I don't know whether this particular limud is called a "hekesh" or something else, but I hope my point is clear.) So I am not saying that the gemara was wrong for deriving these definitions from that pasuk. What I *AM* asking is why the gemara points to that pasuk, when there is a different pasuk it could have used instead. In my view, there is another pasuk that makes the very same point, but much more clearly, in a very pshat way. Why should we resort to a lomdishe juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: > Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos > Ki lo chametz > Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah > They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza > Because it did not become chametz > Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. How much clearer can it be, presuming that the Author wants a historical narrative, and not a legal text? If the word "ki - because" was missing, my argument would be much weaker, but it is *not* missing, and it is the cornerstone of my argument: It became matza *because* it did not become chametz. Chametz and matza are one and the same, differing only in that one is baked prior to chimutz (which prevents chimutz from happening), and the other does undergo chimutz. If dough does reach chimutz, getting baked later is irrelevant. Baking is relevant only to preventing chimutz, which is what creates matza: "They baked it into matza, because it did not become chametz." But I can't find anyone who explicitly connects Shemos 12:39 to the definitions of chametz and matza. Even if there is some weakness to this pasuk, and Devarim 16:3 is truly stronger, I would think that this would be mentioned in the gemara. Pesachim 35a should have said something like, "And R' Ploni retorted, Why do you cite Devarim, when we already have Shemos? But R' Almoni answers that Shemos is actually weaker because of..." Does anyone know of anything like this? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 00:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend 11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in techiyat hamettim. What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:40:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby Message-ID: The Gemara in Kiddushin (73b) has the following case. 4 women give birth to baby boys in the same house and one is the wife of a Cohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin, and one the wife of a mamzer. The Gemara states that the midwife is believed to say which is the son of the Cohen, which is the son of the Levi, etc. The Ran quoted by the Beis Yosef (Even Haezer Siman 4) states that this is a takana d'rabbanon that min hatorah the midwife is not believed (because it is a davar sheberva which requires 2 kosher witnesses). This brings up the some obvious questions: 1. What did they do before this takana? It is clear that men were not around during childbirth so how was there any yichus? 2. When was this takana made? 3. How could the Torah have such an impractical approach to these matters? There Torah was given to human beings to observe and for thousands of years women gave birth with no men present. 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:56:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: By coincidence a recent daf yomi (kiddushin 72b) discusses the future status of mamzerim. The following is a non-literal translation of an article by R Avihud Shwartz from yeshivat har etzion. Anyone who wishes to see the Hebrew can request me to forward the original. This is not a continuation of the previous discussion. The gemara says that R Yose says that in the future (le-atid le-vo) mamzerim and netinim will be tahor while R Meir disagrees. The gemara followed by Rif and Rosh pasken like R Yose. Tosafot asks why the need for a psak on events that will only occur le-atid le-vo. The Rosh answers that the gemara is talking about a safek mamzer. But even R Yose agree that cannot solve the problem of a certain mamzer. R Yose is teaching that there is no need to distance from safek rmamzers today since even in the future they will not be revealed. Hence, R Yose is teaching a practical halacha for today. The Rashba says the gemara does occasionally pasken on future questions and so takes the gemara literally. He is then left with the question how can the prohibition against marrying a mamzer disappear le-atid lavoh. The Rashba has an amazing answer. In the generation before the Eliyahu the rabbis will allow mamzerim as an emergency measure (horaat shaah) but when the Moshiach comes they will be pasul. So according to the Rashba at the time of the geulah there will be a one time heter allowing known mamzerim. To explain this Rashba R Shwartz that a condition for the geulah is the achdut of the nation. Mamazerut introduces a separation among Jews. Therefore for one generation the nation will have a complete achdut between families. During the "regel" all Jews are chaverim (Chahiga 27) . One explanation is that that during the holiday everyone is assumed to keep the rules of taharah. However another explanation is that during the holiday everyone is consider a chaver as part of achdut of the people. R Yose sees mamzerut as a type of Tumah and as the Moshiach comes close this tumah will be removed. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:19:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:19:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524091930.GB15539@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) : that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. ... : What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down : bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, : chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large : percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" : halacha. Well, since you already are reading this midrashically, how about... Someone who doesn't bow at modim isn't being used literally, but as a description of a kind of ingrate. Mouths the words of thank you, but isn't moved by them. And perhaps the point being made by the Zohar is that kifui tovah can be the first step, the point at which a soul goes off course and ends up -- after a downward spiral through worse offenses -- not being revivable at techiyas hameisim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:34:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:00:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see : http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ : and especially : http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 : In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even : greater... The thing is, though, the conversation before this one, which I am presuming motivated this post, was in particular about kibud av va'eim. Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. : children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises : him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful : for this is also greater. Off topic: When prospective fathers call me asking for advice about adoption, one of my first pieces of advice is that you can only do it right if you're being as selfish about it as any other man looking to become a father. If you are doing it because you can look at the child and see in their behavior and personallity some continuation of yourself into the future, fine. But a child needs parents to grow into a healthy adult, not baalei chessed. And I'm not sure if teaching a child this line of reasoning is healthy. It gets in the way of viewing themselves as part of the family's shalsheles. On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 04:10:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I never found much written about the : meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times : influenced the decisions. I think part of the problem is that much of this has to be done subconsciously. The conditions of the times change the metzi'us about which the poseiq rules. And also the poseiq has to try his best to come up with an answer based on the Torah rather than zeitgeist, but no human being's best will ever fully exclude the mood of their era. So the second people start discussing how the times impact pesaq, the discussion itself will change the answer -- and in ways that add rigidity to halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 03:14:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:14:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> References: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. > But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos > of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? I am answering for R Zilberstein so take my words with a grain of salt. First the thrust of the shiur was on the rights of the adopted parents and not on the mitzva of kibud av ve-em. He thus stressed that the adoptive parents have a right to all decisions (apitropus) on the child and not the genetic parents. In particular they make all the decisions concerning education etc including the wedding. As part of the argument he mentioned the zecher shlomo (and chida) that Avraham owed no kibud to Terach once he handed him over to Nimrod. Thus kibud av disappered (pakah) once Terach abandonded Avraham. Since it was not the topic of the shiur he did not discuss if the mitzvah to honor the adoptive parent was mi-deoraitam derabban or something else. I brought from Rav Melamed that it is "only" because of hakarat hatov but he stressed In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children Of course if the adoptive parents are abusive there is certainly no requirement of kibud or hakarat hatov. > Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there > still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein > that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. >> I again refer to YD 240:18 where the Ramah states that there is no mitzva of kibud av ve-am when the parent is a rasha. I also explicitly brought from R Zilberstein that the halachot of mourning are different and that one is required to sit shiva and say kaddish for a parent who is a rasha including one who abandonded the child and presumably an abusive parent. I also brought from Rav Schachter (second hand) that if sitting shiva for an abusive parent would present psychological problems than the child is not required to sit shiva. I would personally explain RHS that strong psychological pain can be pikuach nefesh and overrides shiva and kaddish which are only derabbanan > I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to > the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would > treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. again look at YD 240:18 with Shach, Taz, Pitchei Teshuva etc -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:31:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:31:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies > are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? > I don't think there is any issue here: babies are issued identity bracelets literally seconds after they are born, long before they leave the delivery room. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:40:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57444BBF.209@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:37 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting > down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than > murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar > large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a > "minor" halacha. I don't know how minor this is. Think about it; we're not talking about someone who never comes to shul, and never hears Modim in the first place. What kind of person comes to shul, hears Modim and knows what it is, and yet doesn't bow? Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion of politics real estate er, the Daf. Yes, definitely the Daf. Even if you're deep in, er, the sugya, so long as you're aware that the chazan is saying Modim, you bow. The kind of person who comes to shul and *doesn't* bow at Modim must have some kind of agenda, like the fellow who says "Modim Modim", or "Al Kan Tzipor...", and thus is a pretty serious sinner. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 06:46:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:46:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: <politics real estate er, the Daf. >> The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Looking at it again Tosafot (appears on 16b) asks the same question that I mentioned that all Jews have a share in the world to come. Nevetheless as I mentioned Kaf HaChaim brings a Zohar that one does lose one share in the world to come for not bowing at modin. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 09:46 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back >> bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion >> of politics real estate er, the Daf. > The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim > in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking > about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:38:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: <> I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 13:47:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:47:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744BDCB.7010207@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:38 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. Not to adopting, but to pretending that the child is not adopted, which was the fashion in the early and middle 20th century. By the '70s this fad had mostly passed, and it became accepted that adopted children need to know the truth from the beginning. > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. > see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 See the last piece, at the end of page 2, by R Eliezerov, which explains the confusion that some people have. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:02:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:02:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> Message-ID: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at > modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:05:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:05:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> Message-ID: <5744C20F.1030206@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 05:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at >> modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. That is clearly not whom the gemara or the zohar means. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 20:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 03:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years >his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years >and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara >literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) > >I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) >that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. >First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in >techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend >11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in >techiyat hamettim. Interesting. Is the Kaf haChaim, and the Zohar, interpreting the gemara in?Bava Kamma 16a? http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41181&st=&pgnum=106 https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%90_%D7%98%D7%96_%D7%91 That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, allegorically, to mean?that those people won't be resurrected? Kol Tuv,Josh Waxman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 03:14:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:14:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: As you know, the question of whether a Bar Mitsva boy continues counting Sefira is the topic of much discussion and Bar Mitzva derashot. Sefardi Poskim tend to assur, Ashkenazi tend to be lenient. But one of the major arguments in favor of a BAR mitsva boy continuing to count is that before Bar Mitzvah he was rabbinically obligated (mi-derabanan) because of Hinnukh. I was recently asked about what to advise a BAT Mitsva girl who has been carefully counting every night - under the same conditions. It would seem that in contradistinction to a minor male, there is no obligation of hinnukh on minor females to count sefira. Indeed, a parent has no obligation of hinnukh on mitsvot that will not be obligatory when the child becomes an adult. Hence, a parent need not train his daughter in mitsvot aseh she-haZeman gramman. See R. Yehoshua Neuwirth, The Halachoth of Educating Children, Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1999) Dinim Kelaliyyim, parag. 2, p. 2; R. Barukh Rakovsky, ha-Katan ve-Hilkhotav, I, ch. 2, no. 7. So I think that - even according to the lenient Ashkenazic sources - it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. But she should definitely continue counting (without a Berakha) because counting is the ikkar mitsva - not the berakha. If someone has sources or solid grounds to be meikeil - I'd be happy and thankful to hear them. Kol Tuv Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 06:48:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:48:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?_May_a_Chassan_May_a_Chassan_who_is_get?= =?windows-1252?q?ting_married_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omerwho_is_getting_mar?= =?windows-1252?q?ried_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omer_shave_earlier_in_the_day?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_on_the_32nd_of_the_Omer=2C_before_shekiah=3F?= Message-ID: <1464184133111.74887@stevens.edu> >From OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a Chassan who is getting married the night of Lag B?Omer shave earlier in the day, on the 32nd of the Omer, before shekiah? What is the halacha concerning relatives and other guests attending the wedding? A. The prevalent custom is that one may get married on the night of Lag B?Omer. The halacha in general regarding shaving is to wait until after sunrise on the morning of Lag B?Omer. Rav Belsky zt?l ruled that the chassan and the fathers of the chassan and kallah may shave on the 32nd day of the Omer before shekiah. Other family members and guests should not shave before shekiah. Rav Belsky zt?l did permit them to bring a shaver to the wedding and shave there after shekiah. (See ???? ????, Volume One, pages 109 ? 110) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 10:24:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:24:17 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] expulsions Message-ID: why could not the Dannites leave the megadef in their midst, what would have been so terrible? it was brought in the name of the Alter of Kelm that you see from here how important to remove bad influence from their midst [and Dan were not considered the cream of the crop]. this may be a source for those that disagree with the tack that removing students from an educational mossad should not be done easily , as pikuach nefesh. the nefesh in question according to the Alter would be the rest of the institution..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 08:44:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:44:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?May_I_listen_to_slow_music_during_sefir?= =?windows-1252?q?as_ha=92omer=3F?= Message-ID: <1464277506499.46892@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May I listen to slow music during sefiras ha?omer? A. Music should not be listened to during sefira whether it is fast or slow, even though slow music is less prone to stimulate one to dance. Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim I:166) questions whether one may listen to music for enjoyment throughout the year, and concludes that although throughout the year there are lenient opinions, but during the period of sefira one must be strict. If one was in a state of moodiness or discontent, Rav Belsky zt?l was of the opinion that even during sefira he may lift his spirits with slow music, provided he does not listen excessively. (See ???? ????, Volume One, p. 106) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 11:32:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:32:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. >> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Yichud%20Prohibition%20-%20Part%201.htm The article does bring other poskim including the LR who were strict. Rav Jachter's conclusion is: Obviously, anyone to whom this issue is relevant should consult his Rav for a ruling. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 14:42:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:42:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160526214223.GA15628@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The : gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: :> Lo sochal alav chametz :> Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos :> Do not eat chametz with it :> For seven days you will eat matzos : Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. But this is derashah, not sevara. : .... Why should we resort to a lomdishe : juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for : us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: :> Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos :> Ki lo chametz :> Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah :> They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza :> Because it did not become chametz :> Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay : Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become : chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* : become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. Except that this is a historical statement, descriptive, not prescritive. Their wheat dough was matzah because it happened not to become chameitz -- for reasons the pasuq wants us to notice. Teshu'as H' keheref ayin. And peshat is a pasuq in chumash like in all of Tanakh is more concerned with Mussar than halakhah. It's not a halakhah book at the expense of being a Mussar book. As they say about ayin tachas ayin, peshat is values, derashah exists to provide the halakhah givien the mapping of those values to a limited reality and limited humans. But does that "ki" mean that the lack of becoming chameitz is a defining feature? Maybe a lack of sirchon would also be good lehalakhah, but didn't come up. (Given how much more available wheat was in Egypt.) "Ki" could refer to sufficient cause, you are assuming the pasuq means necessary cause. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 33rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total Fax: (270) 514-1507 submission to truth, and what results? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 19:23:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:23:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> On 05/26/2016 02:32 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah > > There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. > Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's > forbidden, and that's that. >> > > Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 04:13:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:13:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:21:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Asher Weiss Re: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Despite what I wrote two hours ago, I was just notified by my Brother Dov that he discussed the issue with Rav Asher Weiss Shlita last night at his Thursday night Shiur in Har Nof Jerusalem. Rav Asher holds that as long as there is continuity, the girl can continue counting with a berakha after her bat Mitsva. Yiyasher Kochacha and Shabbat Shalom Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il ________________________________ From: Aryeh Frimer Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:13 PM To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 08:44:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:44:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim Message-ID: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Off line conversation that I'm belatedly moving to Avodah: I asked: Starting at 21:6 (then 21:8, and etc etc.) the phrase "lechem Elokim" is used a number of times. Onkelos translates lechem as korban each time -- which is exactly what one would guess. While my Hebrew isn't great, I couldn't find a single mention of this in my Mikraos G'dolos (just about every mention of that pasuk talks about the first part of the pasuk, about forcing a Kohen to give a get). Perhaps it's just so obvious that lechem means korban here, that it's literally unremarkable. But, still, the use of the word "lechem" seems odd to me. It's as if the Torah is going out of its way to make things sound _more_ anthropomorphic, more primitive, than it needs to. (Granted -- now that I think about it, the phrase "rayach nichoach" also seems gratuitously anthropomorphic -- but: (a) there is some commentary on that phrase; and (b) perhaps we hear "rayach nichoach" so often we're just used to it.) Does anybody have any thoughts on why the Torah, after using the words "korban" or "olah" this entire Sefer, suddenly switches to "lechem" in this perek? R Seth Mandel answered: : From a linguistic point of view, I do not consider the usage remarkable. : This is the House of HQBH, and the qorbanot are His Daily Portion. : The use of the word lechem to describe "portion/allotment" I consider : a perfectly normal, if poetic, term. R MIcha Berger responded: ... It would be interesting to confirm this... Does anyone associate Vayiqra 21 with qorbanos that are forced by the calendar, to the exclusion of chatas, asham, todah, etc...? Does qedushas kohanim have more to do with such qorbanos than others? (And if so, does this relate to which qorbanos were allowed on bamos back in the days of bamos?) Anyone else have any thoughts? (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this significant at all?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 09:11:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:11:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim In-Reply-To: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: <574871A5.80303@sero.name> On 05/27/2016 11:44 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with > "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this > significant at all?) We say twice a day "Vaydaber YKVK ... es korboni *lachmi* le'ishai, rei'ach nichochi". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 11:52:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160527185244.GB24209@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:48:27AM +0000, Joshua Waxman via Avodah wrote: : That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is : located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, : allegorically, to mean that those people won't be resurrected? Teaser for my post But the name of the city was "Luz" originally by micha ? [15 Kislev '765] - Fri, Dec 16, 2005 And he [Ya'aqov] called the name of that place Beis-el, but the name of the city was Luz originally. - Bereishis 28:19 Luz, the original name for Beis-el, is apparently the name of a kind of tree, usually translated "chestnut". It's one of the kinds of wood from which Ya'aqov avinu made sticks for the sheep and goats to look at... Bereishis Rabba (69:8) discusses the amazing properties of living in the city of Luz: * They always told the truth. * No one in the city died. When people got old and tired, they needed to move out for nature to take its course. * The city was never conquered by Sancheirev, and wasn't destroyed by Nevuchadnetzar at the end of the first commonwealth... Luz is also the name of a special bone in the body, where the skull and spine meet. Two medrashim associate the luz bone with Hadrian y"sh.... Luz seems particularly connected with Yaiaqov, the one who renames it. First, his service of G-d centers around emes, truth, the middah exemplified by the citizens of Luz. He uses the luz sticks... ... The mishnah says "derekh eretz qodmah laTorah -- proper behavior in society is a prerequisite to Torah." Our aggaditos and midrashim seem to converge on underscoring that point. Luz is the city of truth, it has the permanence of truth both territorially and in the lifespans of its inhabitants. And it's truth, the personality trait about which Yaiaqov centers his service of Hashem, which determines techiyas hameisim. All of these medrashim refer to Luz, to the trait. When referring to applying the pursuit of truth to Torah study or worshipping Hashem, then we progress from Luz to Beis-el. The stick shows the influence of environment... The bone luz is situated just where the mind connects to the body. It is therefore, in a very real sense, "beis keil", G-d's "home" in this world. Ya'aqov builds a circle of stones in which to sleep at this spot, which -- as R' Hirsch notes ad loc -- is the first home of Israel. He gets a vision of a ladder between heaven and earth, an externalized luz bone between mind and body. Once one has the foundation of "Luz", one has the proper personality and attitude to provide some solidity in time and in social context. Then one is capable of building that derekh eretz into Torah, making their soul a house of G-d. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 34th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 and maintain a stable relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 29 05:36:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 08:36:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> References: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160529123638.GB24648@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:23:15PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>> There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. :>> Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's :>> forbidden, and that's that. :> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. : No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you : were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. OTOH, given the size of the observant American community loyal to RMF's pesaqim, anything he says can't simply be dismissed as "rare" either. RYBS was meiqil as well. And, FWIW, was R' Zvi Flaum, a talmid of R' Dovid Lifshitz's - now RY of Shaarei Tzion, oour LOR back when we adopted and the question first arose. I am also curious... RMMS pasqened? Didn't he generally delegate that role to others, leaving himself as head mashpia / moreh derekh, rather than moreh hora'ah? Did this somehow become an emotionally charged machloqes, like eruv for some reason tends to? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 36th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in Fax: (270) 514-1507 being a stable and reliable partner? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 05:25:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:25:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: R. Aryeh Frimer posits that a girl who becomes Bat Mizva during sefira should not continue counting with a bracha after becoming bat mitzva, since, unlike a boy, she had no mitzva to count as a minor because of chinuch. I find this very counterintuitive; on the contrary, it seems to me that a girl has more reason to continue counting with a bracha than a boy. A boy upon becoming bar-mitzva during sefira goes from a status of non-chiyuv (obligation) to chiyuv; one may question whether what he counted in a state of non-chiyuv "counts" when he enters a state of chiyuv. On this point, some poskim say that there was a chiyuv all along, at least rabbinically, so no fundamental change took place; some disagree. A girl, on the other hand, has no chiyuv either before or after her bar mitzva; in this respect, nothing changed at all when she became bat mitzva. Thus, if the girl has been making a bracha on sefira throughout the sefira period, in keeping with Ashkenazi practice, it seems to me that she should continue to make a bracha on sefira after becoming bat mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:42:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:42:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas Message-ID: my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 08:34:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:34:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parshah Dual Dichotomy 5776 Message-ID: <1464622469992.18876@stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6863 For many of us in the know, as well as to the surprise of anyone who might be thinking of traveling to or from Eretz Yisrael, say anytime from after Pesach until Shabbos Chazon, right before Tisha B'Av, something is off. I am referring to the weekly parshah, which would not be the same regularly scheduled one in Chutz La'aretz as it is in Eretz Yisrael. Truthfully, this type of dichotomy actually happens not so infrequently, as it essentially occurs whenever the last day of a Yom Tov falls on Shabbos. In Chutz La'aretz where Yom Tov Sheini is halachically mandated,[1] a Yom Tov Krias HaTorah is publicly leined, yet, in Eretz Yisrael (unless by specific Chutznik minyanim[2]) the Krias HaTorah of the next scheduled parshah is read. This puts Eretz Yisrael a parshah ahead until the rest of the world soon 'catches up', by an upcoming potential double-parshah, which each would be read separately in Eretz Yisrael. See the above URL for much more about this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:18:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jack Stroh via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 18:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> References: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Message-ID: <20160531013511.GA21014@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 02:18:52PM -0400, Jack Stroh via Avodah wrote: : Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with : Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the : disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. Back a step... Our current leining schedule post-dates Chazal, the standardization ceoms from the geonim. And originally it was in use in Bavel. In EY, 3 or 3-1/2 year leining systems were more common. So the systme was designed for chu"l; the parshios chu"l shuls aren't doubling up aren't supposed to be doubled. It's Israel that slipped out of proper alignment with geonic intent. So the question really is why doesn't Israel fall back into line and minimize their drift from the original geonic schedule. Well, this year there are no doubled parshios for them to split until Matos-Masei -- just in time to realign Devarim with the 9 days. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 02:17:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:17:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children Message-ID: <> <> I agree with Micha. I again bring a list of prominent poskim who agree with RMF so it certainly is not a solitary opinion. I would strongly argue that in practice most people follow the lenient opinion. The article I previously quoted brought those to disagreed and concluded that one should check it out with his local rabbi. He certainly did not dismiss the lenient opinion. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. Rav Nachum Rabinovitch (the prominent Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivat Hesder of Maaleh Adumim) is cited in Techumin 10:317 by Rav Azariah Berzon as agreeing with the aforementioned Poskim who permit adoptive parents to have Yichud with their adoptive children. Rav Rabinovitch notes that Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:08:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:08:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160531180845.GA12478@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:17:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Rabinovitch notes that : Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. R' Zundel Salant says that it was the zekhus of adopting the children of those who died in makas choshekh that we were redeemed from Mitzrayim. Since we are obligated to remember yetzi'as Mitzrayim, I can't call it "time immemorial", but since our birth as a nation, certainly. >From : Chamushim Hashem brought the nation around, via the path of the desert, the Red Sea; and the Children of Israel arose chamushim (to be defined) from the Land of Egypt. - Shemos 13:8 ... and the Jews enthusiastically departed from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Unqelus (ad loc) ... with good deeds... - Jerusalem Targum (ad loc) ... one in five. -Tanchuma (Warsaw ed. #1), Mechilta ... and the Jews departed with five infants from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Yonasan (ad loc) Rashi defines "chamushim as "armed", which underlies the Targumim of Unqelus and Yerushalmi. Armed in a spiritual sense, prepared with good deeds. Another definition would be from chameish, five, leading to the medrash concluding that only 1/5 of the Jewish were saved from Egypt. Rashi adds that the other 4/5 of the population died in Egypt during the plague of darkness. These were the people who didn't merit redemption; those who believed in the Egyptian paganism and wanted to stay. Deriving chamushim from the number five is also the point of departure for the Targum Yonsan's "departed with five infants." But the medrash on Shemos, describing the Egypt experience, told us that we had six children at a time. How then can the Targum Yonasan here mean that every Jew left with five children, as though this smaller number is something that should impress us? The Be'er Yoseif therefore believes the naive read of the Targum Yonasan is incorrect. Instead, the Be'er Yoseif explains all these targumim in light of each other. The word chamushim was chosen not despite the ambiguity, but because of all its connotations. Four fifths of the Jewish people died rather than being saved. But what about their children? The youth didn't deserve death, even if they agreed with their parents -- as children, they aren't accountable or punishable for their crimes. The Be'er Yoseif explains that this means that each of the 600,000 men left Egypt had to have left with five families of children -- his own, and those of four families left orphaned by this punishment. Far more than the six-at-a-time that were born to them. This is not only the intent of the Targum Yonasan, but also, raising others' children the "good deeds" of the Jerusalem Targum, as well as the "zerizus", the enthusiasm, of the Targum Unqelus. They were prepared and surrounded by the mitzvah of taking in these children in need. Today we think of adoption as something someone does when they r"l can't have children of their own. However, in light of this devar Torah, we see that this mitzvah played a central role in defining us as a people. According to the Be'er Yosef, it is the merit of adopting orphans that rendered us ready for the redemption from Egypt! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 09:15:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ie in ghettoized Europe , the Accursed Wandering Jew was only the killer of the 'saviour'; not much better in Moslem Middle East. In Modern Times, it can't refer to the million chassidim , to whom isolationism is the ideal , not to mention theologies of the value of the gentile. In Litvish models, ideally the Jew should be confined to the beis medrash , and the spouse 'kvoodah pnima'. It is only the lack of Manna that interferes and forces bedieved one out of the ghetto. The OTD Jews of the last 200 yrs who have impacted every walk of life and every class of endeavor in academia , commerce , culture and liberal polity can not have been what chazal had in mind. The Israel model is the most vilified political entity on Earth. If it's only a messianic concept , then it has nothing to do with the Jews , only the Messiah. so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:40:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:40:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? > > SNIP > > so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, > practically. > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or they need work in this area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 03:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:25:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/31/2016 9:40 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in > Yishayahu. It is a real concept. No, it is not. > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? The phrase ohr l'goyim doesn't exist. There are three verses where something similar exists. Isaiah 49:6 says that Hashem has placed us l'ohr goyim. Isaiah 42:6 also says that Hashem placed us l'ohr goyim. And Isaiah 60:3 says that nations will walk in our light. There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us. And it's not for any specific generation, I don't think, but all of them. We are the example. Whenever I hear "ohr l'goyim" it irks me, because it's such a mistake. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> References: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160601165119.GB20066@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:25:31PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The : former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the : nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among : nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us.... This is clearly peshat in Yeshaiah 60:3, "beholkhu goyim le'oreikh..." But "le'or goyim", in 42:6 and 49:6... I would have said something close to the reverse; to me le'or goyim sounds more like an imperative. An or lagoyim is a descriptive construction. Yeshaiah would be saying that we are light for the nations. L'or goyim is more prescriptive, we are "to provide light for nations". Not as a light, but in to be one. And it's up to us to actually illuminate. BTW, according to Rashi (42:6) those goyim are the shevatim, not other nations. And according the Metzudas David, it's a messianic prophecy, not an imperative before-hand. The thing is, we're obligated to serve as a nation of kohanim in the here-and-now regardless of Yeshaiah. So I see this as a discussion of peshat in the pesuqim, with no pragmatic difference to hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 39th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliable person? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:22:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:22:27 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it >> practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. > It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then > show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other > nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or > they need work in this area. my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of humanity in all generations; except possibly recent times, when those clearly NOT living a halachic life are seen by some at least to have been a source of blessing... furthermore, we fast on the day the Bible was translated, so we can't even say that the other Abrahamic religions is the explanation, since they become in a sense Fruit of a poisonous tree, to use the legal analogy From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 02:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:58:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: I am gratified that my understanding that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during the sefira period can continue to count with a bracha was also expressed to RAFrimer by RMH. Unlike RAFrimer, I do not think that this this constitutes a "fundamental misunderstanding" of brachot women make on time-bound mitzvoth, according to the Rema and standard Ashkenazic practice. If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her chiyuv-level not having changed. I am completely unsurprised that Rav Asher Weiss paskened that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during sefira can continue counting with a bracha, based on his understanding of the mitzvah of sefirat haomer, as appears in Minchat Asher Vayikra chapter 51. R. Asher asks a series of questions that indicate that sefirat haomer is different from other mitzvoth which are performed verbally (see there). He then explains as follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting avodat Hashem. Shofar, lulav, matza are examples of the former. Biur chametz and maakeh are examples of the latter. We make brachot on both categories of mitzvot, but there are differences between them. Sefirat Haomer is a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the mitzvah itself; the avodaat Hashem of sfirat haomer is knowing the count every day, not saying the words themselves. Saying the words is the action by which the desired result is achieved (unlike other verbal mitzvoth like kriyat shma and hallel in which saying the words themselves is avodat Hashem). R. Asher explained elsewhere that mitzvot in which the tozaa is the mitzvah do not require kavana , which is why someone who answers the question "what's the count tonight?" without intending to perform the mitzvah of sefira is nevertheless considered to have performed the mitzvah. In sefira, when a day is counted, when the result of the counting has been achieved (the person knows, by counting, what day it is), the mitzvah has been done. My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) , even if strictly he is not obligated; when he becomes a gadol, he is considered not to have missed any days, and can continue to count with a bracha. As Rav Asher explicitly paskened, this applies to a k'tana as well. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 04:36:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:36:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25c18a21-7bfc-78f4-f9a0-30ba738263a7@zahav.net.il> To give a metaphor: If the machine generating the light is working improperly, the light could be dangerous and it needs to be sent out for repair. Without getting into the question of how the machine broke down (God directing or us choosing to break it), it is clear that if we aren't doing the job, a tikkun is required Ben On 6/1/2016 6:22 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged > history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of > humanity in all generations; From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 07:33:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:33:30 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>>It shows we or they need work in this area. ---- meila i can understand blaming us . but to blame 'they' , the goyim is saying they refused to hear the gospel..... >>>>>>If the machine generating the light is working improperly ---- or properly working light, just that the potential buyers threw it in garbage I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to listen to our message... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:21:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: I am responding on avodah to some remarks on arevim > So if the health minister happens to be ... anti-vaxx ..., suddenly the > halacha has to turn around?! And after the next election it turns around > again?! Look at what happened in Israel two years ago, when German > was health minister and decided to end fluoridation. Now Litzman is > restarting it. Was everyone supposed to change their minds in those two > years, or accept that the truth changed, just because the government did?! This completely misunderstands the role of government rules. Besides dina de-malchuta we learn that if not for the government we would live in anarchy everyone decides for themselves what is best. Medieval philosophers and commentaries debate why one must listen to the government. Opinions range from divine rights to the king can kick you out to more modern theories that the citizens accept the rule by staying in the country and especially by accepting privileges from the government like the use of roads, army, schools etc. In consonance with the Mishna we listen to the government because without it there is chaos. The government specifies safety laws, traffic laws, tries thieves and murderers, has laws against sexual and drug abuse There is nothing in these theories about the government always being right. Obviously, governments are made from people who make decisions and different countries have different laws some more liberal and some more conservative. However in each country one is required by HALACHA to follow the government regulations (as long as they don't conflict with halacha). If the regulations change over time then yes the observant Jew much change his behavior just as he changes when doctors change their views or when a bet din changes their views. When batei dinim in different locales disagree then each community must follow their local bet din. Pointing out that a different bet din disagrees doesn;t matter one must follow the local bet din. Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. ------------------------- In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Some possibilites that have been offered include 1) There is a mitzvat aseh to listen to the rabbis 2) It is based on logic similar to above, otherwise it leads to chaos He went into a side discussion of the status of sevara (deoraita?) and a Rav Akiva Eiger. 3) The rabbis are smarter than us and so we should listen. RMA points out that there is an intrinsic problem. If the reason is too good then we are back to question that it becomes a deoraita. If it is weak then listening to the rabbis becomes wishy-washy, ie if circumstances change, if one disagrees with their reasoning etc. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 09:49:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603165041.NPMS27913.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> R S Newman has posed the question in a provocatively interesting way. Thanks! Musing out loud, is it possible that the concept applies to Torah/Torah values in addition to its people? For example, doesn't the Rambam offer that Xtianity and Islam, both "offshoots", if you will, of Judaism, have moved the world's population (at least partially, in the case of some part of Xtianity) away from A"Z? As a second data point, R Jonathan Sacks often points out how many of the world's ideas are rooted in Torah (e.g., equality (even the King!) before the law, which, in turn, gave rise to (because it was a necessary pre-condition of) democracy, etc.). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 11:04:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: <133b75.a02d7da.44832097@aol.com> ohr lagoyim when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ....so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. >>>> It began long before Chazal, in the time of Avraham Avinu. (The concept, not the exact words.) And Yitzchak and Yakov. "All the nations of the world will be blessed through you." For the incredible moral and intellectual influence the Jews have had on the rest of the world throughout history, see Thomas Cahill's book, *The Gifts of the Jews* and read Dennis Prager's review of the book in *First Things* which summarizes the book's main points. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/11/002-cahills-gift Hirsch in the introduction to his commentary on Tehillim shows that Dovid Hamelech meant for Sefer Tehillim to be used as a book of prayer by all the nations of the world and indeed, this has come to pass, with Tehillim having been translated into practically every language in the world. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:22:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:22:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:37:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:33:30AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . : so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to : listen to our message... As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those words exist anyway? RBW assumes that it does, and therefore if we are unhappy with the rate of progress, we should asume the light needs fixing, not that its users are neglecting it. But I have no doubt that our influence has had a central role in the progress of civilization. Whether or not we consciously worked at it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 11:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:20:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier For a detailed answer see http://rabbikaganoff.com/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:11:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> References: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57539853.9030809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:22 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the > : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? > > The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? The first 11 chapters of Devarim is a tochacha. But it's not curses, which is what we usually associate with the term. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > words exist anyway? In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; that people will come to EY to do business with Shevet Zevulun, and while they're there they will do some touristing and visit Y'm to see what is to be seen, and be so impressed that they'll accept the 7 mitzvos and bring zivchei tzedek. So there's no missionising, no outreach, just us being ourselves, and those who are already prone to be attracted to the light will be attracted. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 09:04:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:04:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160605160452.GA11606@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:20:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. : The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier : For a detailed answer see : http://rabbikaganoff.com/ With all due respect to RYK, what I said earlier is historically correct: the currently leining system was designed by geonim for Bavel. So chu"l leining for the 8th of Pesach instead of Acharei-Mos was correct scheduling. It is Israel that got ahead. So the major question is why does EY wait until Matos Mas'ei to split a double parashah and fall back into sync with the design? And that's easy -- because all the double parshios before then are already split! If you want to ask why the ge'onim have us splitting all the double parshios, yes, that has to do with timing the tochachah to be 2 Shabbasos before Shavuos. But that's not a why we didn't catch up to EY yet thing -- catching up was never a goal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 05:45:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 08:45:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wrote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? There are multiple r Avigdor miller shiurim where he demonstrates clearly that Jewish ideas have slowly entered the goyishe (western) world thru us. Where Jews did not live, our teachings have yet to have the same effect (far east, Africa, etc) This is also the message of r Aryeh Kaplan in 'If You Were God' http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48970646.html See r ken Spiro's 12 part series world perfect where he demonstrates that this has occurred http://www.aish.com/sem/wp/ Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c learn from us) Its true we spent most of our history just trying to survive, but by osmosis (and more) our ideas and ideals have molded and raised the level of humanity as a whole Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 10:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:09:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> References: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> Message-ID: <57545CC9.3050301@sero.name> On 06/05/2016 08:45 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient > madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be > dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c > learn from us) The gemara says that "Israel was only exiled among the nations so that converts should be added to them". Note the passive form. Even in galus we were not expected to actively recruit gerim, but rather to live among the nations so that those who are naturally attracted to our way of life would be able to find us and avail themselves of an option that they would otherwise never know about. Not even a symbolic hishtadlus is expected of us; we are simply to do our own thing, but in a place where potential gerim will see us. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 12:46:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:46:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those : >words exist anyway? : : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; ... The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an imperative to put in conscious effort as well. My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to avodas Hashem. Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat in "le'or goyim". There is also a possibility that le'or goyim is a messianic prophecy. Like And the same questions could be raised with "Halkhu amim rabim... Ki miTzion teitzei Sorah..." De facto, it will? We must act in a way that causes Torah to be spread from Zion? Now? Le'asid lavo? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 13:00:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:00:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitzva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: In discussing the case of a girl who became bat mitzva in the course of sefira, it is instructive to consider the analysis of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik (the Rov) of the Bahag's opinion on sefirat haomer (see Harrei Kedem Volume II chapter 112). The position of the Bahag is that one who does not count one day of omer does not make a bracha on subsequent days The Rov did not accept the widely-held opinion that the Bahag holds that there is one mitzva to count all 49 days. Rather, each day of sefira is a separate mitzva. However, on each day, there is a "din mesuyam", a particular law that the previous days have been counted. If this is not true, one is counting not sequentially, but with skipping, not the count the Torah specified. Skipping a day invalidates each and every subsequent day, not the totality of the count. As is well known, according to the Bahag, one who forgot to count at night counts during the day without a bracha, but may subsequently count with a bracha. The Rov asked: according to the Bahag, does one fulfill the mitzva of sefira during the day? If so, why doesn't one make a bracha? If not, why may one continue counting subsequent days with a bracha? The Rov held that the Bahag held like Rabbeinu Tam that the mitzva of sefira is only at night, and when one counts during the day he does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all. However, when counting during the day, one does a "maase sefira", an act of counting, even if he does not perform "mitzvat sefira". This maase sefira makes his counting connected, and he can continue counting with a bracha, although there was one day on which he did not perform the mitzva of sefira at all. According to the Bahag, one who forgot to count the 49th night gains nothing by counting the following day, since one does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all during the day. Counting during the day is not in itself a mitzva, but only helps to enable counting subsequent days with a bracha. Even if one were to say that a katan (minor) does not have a chiyyuv (obligation) to count sefira, and a katan that counts has not performed the mitzva of sefira, nevertheless his count is a "maase sefira", an act of counting. In this way the count of a minor is similar to counting during the day; it is a masse sefira which enables one to continue counting with a bracha, even when the katan becomes a gadol. Clearly, this applies to a minor girl exactly as it does to a minor boy. The Rov noted that even if one were to know that he will not be able to count every night until Shavuot, he counts every night with a bracha until he misses, since each night's count is a separate mitzva, and skipping a future night will not invalidate a previous night's mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 23:49:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:49:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 6/5/2016 10:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > : >words exist anyway? > : > : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; > ... > > The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort > and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an > imperative to put in conscious effort as well. > > My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a > statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being > a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? And I think the answer is "no". > So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to > shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim > either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to > avodas Hashem. Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the nations of the world. > Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. > [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, > hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. And again, no chiyuv here. > > Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... > > It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that > is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat > in "le'or goyim". No one is saying it isn't a good thing. But we prioritize, and whether a thing is an obligation or not goes into the calculation of those priorities. This isn't an obligation. To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 19:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 22:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ain machlokess bo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5b76f9d9-80e4-c222-c9e6-881437eb0fb9@gmail.com> In //Dynamics of Dispute/,/ I develop the idea that the Rambam, when he says that there is no //machlokess/ /b'payrush mekubal miSinai/,/ he does not mean that there were no disputes *about* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. He means that there was no disagreeing *against* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. In note 12 (p. 82) I wrote that in addition to indications that this is so from other writings of the Rambam and their applications to talmudic sources, The //Mevo HaTalmud//, attributed to Shmuel HaNaggid, indicates this definition of the word //machlokess// as well. I have just found that the Meiri on Avos 5:19, regarding a different subject, explicitly gives this definition to the word //machlokess//, explicitly negating it in the other sense. He writes: It seems to me that [the use of the word] ''machlokess'' attaches only to the one who responds to the first [speaker]. I.e. ...when a second person responds [to the first] and says, ''What you say is proper to do is improper, or what you taught is wrong,'' this [response] is the ''machlokess.''...the "machlokess" only refers to one of the two sides, the one that responds to the first. Another way to put it: Sometimes the word //machlokess/ /refers to an opposing opinion, not to two or more opposing opinions. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 05:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:56:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> >> No one is saying it isn't a good thing. ..To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. R Avigdor miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 09:22:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:22:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. ------ the only problem i have with their approach is that , had the Jewish people been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies their job was basically done---since a billion xtians then took over , and a billion moslems after that . the direct interaction of jews w goyim in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to have minimal direct impact . where jews have major impact in modern times , in science , entertainment , ,media etc are ways that clearly were not only not what Scripture had in mind, but in many cases directly contravening Tradition.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 04:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:56:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R > Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the > requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo > tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban > becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita > is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 12:49:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:49:09AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to :> shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim :> either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to :> avodas Hashem. : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the : nations of the world. So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a tzivui? :> Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. : Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. (I just noticed this tied to "mamlekhes kohanim" quite smoothly.) We also see from hilkhas geneivas aku"m that chilul hasheim and qiddush hasheim involve whether we ch"v distance aku"m from AYH or merit to draw them closer. So I guess we could add qiddush hasheim and avoiding chilul among the list of potetial imperatives that say le'or goyim in more clearly tzivui terms. Going back to the parshanus of le'or goyim... RET posted on Areivim in 2012 (quoted then by RnCL, with permission at , quoting IE and the Radaq (49:6) that le'or goyim refers to Yeshaiah's nevu'ah 00 the light is the nations seeing that his nevu'ah was fulfilled. And thus not about the Jewish people at all. To which RnCL replied citing the Rashi (as I already wrote, in one place he takes "goyim" to mean shevatim, and thus uplifting other Jews) and then quotes the other Radaq (42:6) and translated: > And so you would be also l'or goyim like it says "And nations shall > walk to/in your light -v'helchu goyim l'orech" [Yeshiyahu 60:3 - where > it is pretty clear that it is the nation Israel being talked about] > and the light is the Torah that shall go out to them from Tzion. And then translating Metzudas David (ad loc): > L'or goyim - to light the eyes of all the nations to know that Hashem > hu haElokim. Closing with her own thesis: > And indeed I think that it is the other pasuk quoted by the Radak, ie > v'helchu goyim l'orech that is the one that is the real source for the > common understanding which is usually labelled as Or l'goyim. That pasuk > is quoted all over the place (unlike l'or goyim), for example in dozens > of places in midrash raba, tanchuma, pesikta d'rav kahana etc And a lot > of the commentary in the various midrashic sources involves analogies > between the shemen zayis that lights the Beis HaMikdash and Yisrael who > lights the world -eg Shemos Raba which goes on to say and so our fathers > were called zayis because they gave light to all with their emunah. > > That is, to my mind, the concept which we understand to be or l'goyim is > unquestionably there in the sources - it is just generally drawn from a > psuk that is much more of a mouthful (Yeshiyahu 60:3). L'Or goyim, does, > it would seem according to all the classic commentators, mean a light to > the nations, as we would understand it, but, at least on one of the two > pasukim where it is used, it is understood as referring to Isaiah himself, > not the Jews in general (but note that it is clearly a good thing, > and high praise of Isaiah, that he should be considered this). And, > as so often seems to be the case (and as discussed with tikun olam) > the phrase which tends to roll off the lips in the common parlance is > not the strictly correct biblical terminology, but the one that sort of > sounds right to the ear of the layperson to get to the concept of which > they are aware. To continue her thought to focus on 60:3, I see BB 75a explains vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as a messianic prophecy, and someting HBH will do, not even hilkhisa demeshichasa. Metzudas David: "As to say, from you they will learn the ways of Hashem and you will light their eyes." Also, not clearly a tzivui. The Tanya 1:36 takes "vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as messianic, and thus not a tzivui for the here-and-now The Malbim takes the pasuq as prophetic and descriptive, linking the seifa, "yeilekhu leneged zarchakha" to "ukhvodo alayikh yra'eh" in the previous pasuq. Okay, given 60:2, we could presume 60:3 isn't imperative either. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:38:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:38:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> References: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> Message-ID: <20160606203815.GB983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:56:44AM -0400, M Cohen wrote: : R Avigdor Miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out : and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own : backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Maybe in theory we should clean up our own backyard first, but... Anyone in kiruv would question whether they are all that separable. My own most inspiring Shabbasos were in NCSY, experiencing it with people for whom it was one of their first few attempts to observe Shabbos. Similarly, anyone who has given a shiur will tell you that the topics they prepared to teach others are those they know best. And even during the shiur -- umitalmidai yoseir mikulam. Maybe if we invested effort being a mamlekhes kohanim, we would be better at avoiding messing up our own backyard too. And for a Hirschain perspective... The Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch by Rabbi Mayer Schiller http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/humanisim_rsrh.pdf Jewish Action (Summer 5759/1981) pp. 21-26. Vol.49, No. 3 On pg 24 (PDF pg 4) he quotes 19 Letters where RSRH talks about a world in which every Jew would be a mutely eloquent example and teacher of universal righteousness and universal love; if thus the dispersed of Israel were to show themselves everywhere on earth as the glorious priests of God and pure humanity... RSRH makes a duty to set an example. Not to actively teachm but not to ignore the example we set either. And then there's the Semag (Asei 74), which I translated for : I already expounded to the exiled from Jerusalem who are in Spain and the other Roman exiles that now that the exile has gone on far too long, it is appropriate for Israel to separate from the vanities of the world and grab onto the signet of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is truth, and not to lie neither to Jew nor to gentile. Not to mislead them in any way. To sanctify themselves even in what is permitted to them, as it says, "The remnant of Israel do not commit sin, do not speak lies, and one won't find a false tongue in their mouths." (Tzefaniah 3:13) And when Hashem comes to save them, the nations will say, "It was done justly, for they are a people of truth and the Torah of truth is in their mouths." But if they act with the gentiles with trickery, they will say, "See what the Holy One, blessed be He did, that chose for His portion thieves and con-men." Also, it says, "I will plant her [the Jewish People] for myself in the land..." (Hosheia 2:25) A person doesn't plant a kur [of seed] but to produce numerous kurim. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, planted Israel among the lands so that converts will join them (Pesachim 87b) and every time that they conduct themselves with trickery, who will attach to them? It seems that unless we act in a way that makes it obvious to non-Jews that our redemption would be just, the Semag expects us to continue to languish here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:39:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> On 06/06/2016 03:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I > : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the > : nations of the world. > > So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > tzivui? 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. 2) What is the origin of This idea you keep pushing, that "mamlechet kohanim" has some connection to outreach to anyone, let alone nochrim? 2a)Since when is that a kohen's job? 2b) Pshat in "kohanim" is princes, as in "uvnei David kohanim" (Rashi) This whole idea is at most, again, a nice drasha for a rov in shul, or for a mussar sefer, but certainly not relevant to halacha. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:43:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:43:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.)" What you suggested is what the Ran says, however, the Ramban explicitly rejects this idea. R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? Therefore, he explains that by dinim d'rabbanan what is not important is the actual mitzva act, but the fact that you listened to the Chachamim and did not rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:51:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I referenced who explains the Ramabam. R' Meir Simcha makes a very different assumption. He assumes that every d'rabbanan is NOT necessarily the ratzon hashem and therefore by d'rabbanans what is important is that you listen to the chachamim and not rebel, the actual action is not as important ayen sham. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 12:42:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:42:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160607194229.GA27374@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:22:53AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : the only problem i have with their approach is that, had the Jewish people : been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies : their job was basically done -- since a billion xtians then took over, : and a billion moslems after that. the direct interaction of jews w goyim : in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to Unless you think our presence had a cultural impact that explains things like why the doctrine of trinity evolved and why they don't go on Crusades anymore. On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a :> tzivui? : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. Targum Yonasan ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be called on to serve. Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. Kehunah is a duty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:22:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> On 6/7/2016 11:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:39:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <575730E4.7050400@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :>So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > :>tzivui? > : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a > : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be > : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; > : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. > Targum Yonasan You mean, of course, "Yonasan", i.e. a version of Targum Yerushalmi that a printer mistakenly attributed to Yonasan. But of course we all know that, I hope. I just expected to see the scare quotes. > ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be > called on to serve. A kohen's shimush is the avodah in the BHMK, not anything else. It's (1) a promise, not a tzivuy or a nevuah; and (2) has nothing to do with "service" to anyone. > Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many > hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against > this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in > inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job > by definition. *If* it's a job, it's a job of avodah BHMK, and the pasuk is promising that if you do as I tell you then I will award you this prestigious job. But Rashi says the *pshat* here is not a job at all, but a status. He has to say that, because al pi pshat non-bechorim were *never* intended to be kohanim meshamshim. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:01:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573627.6060306@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" > as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem > lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". 1. I think you got that backwards. Ve'atem tihyu is the prat, and Eileh had'varim is the klal. 2. I fail to see the point you're deriving from this. How does this make it a tzivuy of any kind? However you read it, it's still a promise, a proposed deal, not a command. > As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. > Kehunah is a duty. Meyuchad is not a duty, it's a status. What one is meyuchad *for* can be a duty, as here (except for the problem that non-bechorim were never intended to do avodah), but the yichud is not a duty. "Mekudeshes" doesn't mean "obligated in the duties of a wife", it's the status of being dedicated to one man, though that status by its nature *comes* with those obligations. And "harei at mekudeshes li" is certainly not a command to do those things that a wife is obligated to do for her husband. It's predicated on an understanding that she *will* do them, but it's not itself any kind of command. But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:40:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 05:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries > : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. > > Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 23:02:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:02:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: The Megilla describes how Ruth sneaks in to where Boaz is sleeping and lies down at his feet and that Boaz woke up in the middle of the night to find her there. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (19b) states that Boaz had a bigger Nisayon with Ruth then Yosef had with Potifer's wife because Ruth was single and tehora (see Rashi there). I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? I would bet that the answer for everyone (male) reading this is no. The thought would not even cross our mind. So why does the Gemara state that this was a tremendous nisayon for Boaz? It's not like there is no yetzer hara for arrayos today, there certainly is, just look around at what is going on in the world around us and even within the frum community. And yet, IMHO the average person would not see the situation described in the Megilla as a nisayon at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:09:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:09:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. Ben On 6/8/2016 8:02 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you > woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) > lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 13:01:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:01:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up Message-ID: in this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work in the long run. i wonder if the claim is true, and if so, how could there be a hetter for such a thing---multiples are riskier than singletons; i can't imagine that a posek could allow that jsut for budgetary reasons... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:23:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:23:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > > Even if that is true, why does that make it a big nisayon for boaz? It's either an issur drabbanan or doraysa for him to sleep with her. Why would he be tempted? He also happened to be an old man. If a woman came up to you and made it clear that she wants to sleep with you would you be tempted? Would that be a tremendous nisayon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:42:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:42:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] samael Message-ID: not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger of doing so? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:26:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:26:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] samael In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589BAA.7090905@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 03:42 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have > never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger > of doing so? One is not supposed to pronounce the name of *any* angel that isn't also a human name. As far as I know this is a universally-accepted rule. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 14:55:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:55:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608215544.GA2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:13:32AM +0000, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: : RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she : wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, : and never will be Chayav... I am wondering if the chiyuv of chinukh to follow minhagim may be more binding than any minhag itself. If she is counting because that's what women in her eidah do, poerhaps her post-bat mitzvah chiyuv is *less*. : To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here : regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman : geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, : Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh : haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a.] a : woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is : a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives : heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant : berakhot... And because "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" is a statement about HQBH commanding the tzibur, so there is no sheqer inan einah metzuvah ve'osah saying "vetzivanu". For that matter, how does making a berakhah on a mitzvah performed for chinukh work? And returning to the case of an edah where women are nohagos to count the omer, an Ashkenaziah would make a berakhah on a minhag too. On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote: : If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a : bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah : (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able : to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her : chiyuv-level not having changed. If in all cases, she is making a berakhah on the tzibur's command, and perhaps the over la'asiyasah is what triggers why say the berakhah now rather than some other time. I think the list of sources RAF provides speak more to what constitutes a trigger for saying the berakhah than what the berakhah is on. And lemaaseh, chinukh, minhag and einah metzuvah ve'osah are each sufficient for Ashkenazios. : ... [R Asher Weis] then explains as : follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action : (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the : result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to : achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting : avodat Hashem... Sounds like a sibling to the Brisker gavra vs cheftzah. Whether the gavra has to do the pe'ulah, or the tzotza'ah must take effect onthew cheftzah ... : My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a : mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the : mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a : maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is : definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan : counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira : (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) ... Yeah, but it's not only the child counting, it's the child's mind which knows the count. Kind of like the non-Jew made the maaqah, but on his own home! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:25:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:25:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the : government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not : knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. Many accuse the AhS of writing things that would to appeal to the govt censor. But not to distort the din, only in cases where he thought the readership would realize he was obviously doing so. Which means that the AhS can't be used as a ra'ayah, because those who disagree will simply say he *obviously* couldn't have meant it. But the idea that communal policy halakhah should follow the NIH (or your country's equivalent) recommendations because the alternative is chaos appears compelling. Assuming the poseiq things the gov't is being honest. : In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael : Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to : listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees : and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita... Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on their audience. Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently includes conflicting laws. : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo sasur cannot apply. Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 : R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to : explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim : d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do : the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that : whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we : keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. : : This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I : referenced who explains the Ramabam.... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 min. in). As is my norm, I add bits here and there. ... But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, neither to the left nor to the right"? 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between Torah and rabbinic law. 2- [My own addition] R' Shimon Shkop allows us to say the same thing, 180deg off. In Shaarei Yosher, he asks the question of why a sefeiq sefeiqah (a doubt added upon a second doubt) is ruled leniently. The Rashba (Shu"t 1:401) holds it's a variant on the notion of relying on majority... Rav Shimon explains sefeiq sefeiqa on other grounds, following the Rambam. Who said that a doubt in Torah law must be ruled stringently? It wasn't the Torah, it is rabbinic! ... So, rather than the Ramban's limiting the specific prohibition to only cases where we are certain about the realia, it's possible that we could limit the rabbinic enactment of ruling stringently on Torah law to have only been made about the other 612 laws. With the same consequent rationale. 3- Rav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (Meshekh Chokhmah, Devarim 17:11): A Torahitic prohibition describes something that is inherently wrong. The universe is made such that combining meat and milk is a problem (metu'af, meshuqatz). A rabbinic prohibition lacks that reality. Chicken and milk isn't inherently damaging, it is that it leads to error through habit or accident. Therefore, one needn't the same care when dealing with rabbinic extension as when dealing with the damaging or refining thing itself. 4- Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Qunterus Divrei Soferim): Of course there is a reality to rabbinic statements. It is all revealed from the Creator, all the Ratzon Hashem yisbarakh (the Will of the Creator, blessed be He). The difference between a derabbanan and a de'oraisa is the explicitness. Therefore it is less sacred, and violation involves lesser realities. A difference of quantity, not quality. Rabbi Rakeffet links Rav Elchanan's position to his belief in da'as Torah; both imply a belief that there is revelation of Hashem's Will today through the rabbis. 5- Shulchan Arukh haRav [another addition not in the lecture]: In a rare case of where the Shulchan Arukh haRav discusses the purpose of a law rather than just codifying practice, he discusses the significance of yom tov sheini shel galiyos, the observance of a second day of Yom Tov outside of Israel. He explains that there is no time in the heavenly realms. The supernal "Pesach" is not associated with any particular time. Hashem made a connection between that Pesach and the 15th of Nissan, giving us a worldly manifestation within time. The SAhR continues that the 16th of Nissan is connected to the very same supernal Pesach. The seder on the 2nd night is a manifestation of the same metaphysical reality. What differs is who draws down the connection, not what it is we are connected to. Perhaps this is generalizable to rabbinic legislation in general. This would result in an opinion similar to Rav Elchanan's in that it gives a reality to rabbinic law, rather than their just being pragmatics for how to keep Torah law. However, the opinions are also quite different in that it makes the rabbinic legislator a metaphysical engineer, building the reality, rather than a conduit of Hashem's revelation of that reality. And, to continue R' Rakeffet's thought, Chassidic attachment to the Tzaddiq is not the same as the Yeshiva World's notion da'as Torah. 6- Seifer Me'iras Einayim (SM"A, Ch"M 67, #2): The berakhah that Hashem gives to those who keep shemittah , that they will have sufficient crops in the 6th year for the 6th, 7th and 8th years, is only when shemittah is mandatory by Torah law. (I.e. when the majority of the tribes are in their lands, and therefore there is a yoveil every 50th year.) Today, someone who keeps rabbinic shemittah gets no such guarantees. 7- Chazon Ish (Deshevi'is 18, #4): The blessing did apply during the 2nd Temple and after its destruction, for the heavenly court fulfills based on what's decreed down below. Rabbi Rakeffet identifies the SMA with the position of the Meshekh Chokhmah, and the Chazon Ish with R' Elchanan Wassermnn's. To my mind, it's possible that his position is more like the Shulchan Arukh haRav. However, this explains why the Chazon Ish was so willing to be stringent when it came to keeping shemittah. Had he felt that the observance didn't come with insurance from the A-lmighty, perhaps he would have ruled leniently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:31:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589CB8.8080308@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 04:01 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > in this documentary > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is > claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few > babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work > in the long run. That only makes sense for women who are planning a particular size of family, and use birth control the rest of the time. I don't see how it could possibly work for women who never use birth control, and whose "plan" is to have as many children as Hashem sends. How could having more than one at a time reduce the total number of pregnancies? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 16:18:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:18:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160608231854.GC16414@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:40:42PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? : : "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. : For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* : anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". Which is why it's intransitive. I included the "Li" in my quote because the prepositional phrase was part of my point. "Lekhahein" is not the verb of being a kohein or being made a kohein, but doing a kohein's job. Also, Yeshaiah 61:10, "kechasan yekhahein pe'eir". Even any case, I found this in the Seforno on the pasuq: And with this you will be a segulah from among them [referring to "vehyisem li segulah" in the previous pasuq]. Because you will be a "mamlekhes kohanim" to understand and teach to the entire human species that all will call in Hashem's name and to serve Him "with one shoulder"... Which not only makes my diqduq point, he clealy speaks of a duty to actively instruct the world -- ROS writes "lehoros lekhol hamin ha'enoshi". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:23:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:23:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: R' Zev Zero wrote: > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand experiences with the job, too. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:50:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:50:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Authorial Programs Message-ID: I've been leading a chaburah studying the Minchat Chinuch. It's quite interesting trying to figure out why he dives into some topics in detail and others he says would be too long, or this isn't the place to discuss detail or he's "not holding" in it right now. Makes me wonder how many mechabrim have a conscious, programmatic approach versus a subconscious approach or no unifying theme. Anyone aware of any analysis? 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 Wed Jun 8 22:30:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:30:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* > a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" > on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) > The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only an asmachta. > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not > : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be > what > : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara > that > : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. > If > : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... > > His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This > would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on > their audience. > > Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently > includes conflicting laws. > That is not the Meshech Chochmas point. His point is that we as human beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the action. > : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why > : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the > : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, > : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast > : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the > : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. > > This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs > to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo > sasur cannot apply. > This is not the Ran it is the meshech chochma explaining the Rambam > Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq > de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. > ... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps > shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore > came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. > > > R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of > Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 > min. in). As is my norm, > I add bits here and there. > ... > But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic > law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, > neither to the left nor to the right"? > > 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made > the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the > case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between > Torah and rabbinic law. > This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the opinion of the Ran. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 22:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:34:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger nisayon then Yosef faced? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:22:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" is only d'rabanan. In other words, if one has a legitimate safek about whether he did a d'Oraisa, then it is a smart idea and/or a rabbinic obligation to resolve that safek, but he is not required by the Torah to do so. I don't know if the above is correct, but if it is then it could be very relevant to the current discussion. For example, a safek d'rabanan might be a sort of "sfeik sfeika", and therefore go l'kula. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 07:31:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:31:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cholov Stam Outside of the US Message-ID: <1465482641540.74929@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/hezpyyn Q: I am planning a vacation to some foreign countries, and I assume that since I drink cholov stam, I can drink the milk in the countries I visit. I wanted to double-check with you, just in case. (A consumer's question) A: It's a good thing that you contacted us! The heter of cholov stam, which was explained in the previous installment of Halcha Yomis, only pertains to countries which have adequate dairy regulations. The OU's poskim have ruled that European Union nations and other countries with well-enforced dairy regulations qualify for the heter of cholov stam. In countries where such regulations are lacking or are poorly enforced, milk remains prohibited as cholov akum and requires on-site kashrus supervision in order to be permissible. To inquire about a specific destination please contact the OU via kosherq at ou.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:43:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AAB7.5050807@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 09:22 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" > is only d'rabanan. See Shev Shmaatsa at great length on this question. I don't remember his conclusion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 09:24:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:24:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160609162401.GB31542@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowlderized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Second, being gadol hador just makes it worse. Kol hagadol mechaveiro yitzro gadol heimenu. (An idea with way too much evidence in support in the newspapers. Not the drequency of the stories, it's still man-bites-dog. But the things religious people and other role models are caught doing that most of us aren't tempted to do....) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AA0E.60404@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 05:23 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Zero wrote: > > > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. > > I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. > > Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. > "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" > > Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand > experiences with the job, too. It was expected that all of Shevet Levi would devote themselves to learning, since they had nothing else to do, and since they got in that position in the first place mostly by dint of having already been the Torah-learning class in Mitzrayim (which role they got simply by staying in the beis medrash when everyone else ran out to do their civic duty) it was natural that they would continue. Thus it was expected that they would be prominent in the Sanhedrin ("uvasa el hacohanim haleviyim") and "yoru mishpatecha leyaacov". But there was no requirement on any individual Cohen or Levi to do so; they were given land for farming around each of their cities, and by the late 2nd bayis it appears that most cohanim, or at least a large proportion of them, were amei ha'aretz, and this did not make them less Cohanim. From this I conclude that Torah is not part of the job, but rather something to do when you're *not* on the job. The actual job of kehuna was a well-paid sinecure that Hashem gave them so they would have the time to do this other thing on their own, much as one is supposed to let a Talmid Chacham sell his goods first in the market, so he can get out of there and back to his "hobby". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:08:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:08:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Message-ID: <000001d1c250$098a3600$1c9ea200$@actcom.net.il> Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. She was not a stranger accosting him on the street, she was not a work colleague (with whom there are certain professional boundaries) nor was she the girl at the checkout counter. (Platonic relationships had not been invented yet-yes, I'm being sarcastic. There is probably no such thing as a truly platonic relationship between a straight man and a straight woman, which is why we are enjoined to be tznu'im. En apotropus le'arayot, remember?) His own wife had died a couple of months before (at the start of the barley harvest) which probably meant he was lonely and certainly meant that involvement with Rut would not have been an emotional betrayal of his wife. It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. It was highly unlikely that anyone would have known about a one-time liaison between them, so there would have been no hillul haShem, and Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 07:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:30:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, Some want to distinguish between different types of safek 1) safek in the :metziut" 2) safek in the din 3) machloket poskim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 10:25:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:25:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] temimos re: last day of shavuos Message-ID: <20160610172550.NHHT21830.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> I was doing some learning with a Kollel guy in a chabura about s'firas ha'omer, and I asked RSM's famous question, pitting "tosafos yom tov" vs the minhag that the Taz mentions of waiting until the end of the 49th day to count because of "temimos." The Rav thought it was a great question, and he took it back to his Rosh HaKollel, who, among other things asked: if this is such a good kashya, why does nobody even bring it up for 200 years after the Taz? Quite "coincidentally", he ran into a 32-page packet, just produced by BMG in Lakewood, that is on this very question. So, for your interest and/or Shavous study, see , or https://www.dropbox.com/s/ig0jxw2ye3xlpjy/%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99.pdf?dl=0 (you can download it) Good shabbos and a gutten yuntiff! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 13:36:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160610203636.GA30587@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:30:15PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the : Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, .... This was discussed earlier on this thread, right before RAM's question: Me: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#03 the other RMB: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#08 :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 03:24:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:24:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20160614102429.GA26569@aishdas.org> I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that post-modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever know to be objectively true. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs... I think post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. However, I can know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. So, the folk there pointed me to Rav Shagar (Rav Shimon Gershon Rosenberg), a DL postmodern baal machashavah. Along the way, someone mentioned R/Dr Alan Brill's blog post of notes he made to himself teaching R Shagar's works. or . To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true to Ayin. Given their advice, and the hopes that I could find common language with the post-modern among my own children, I spent part of the "3 day yom tov" with R' Shagar. Given my opening rejection in post-modernism, as well as a couple of comments made by Dr Brill, I must admit I may not have been fair. Perhaps one of his fans is lurking on list and wants to clear up wht I misunderstood. As R/Dr Brill put it "The very question" in the prior sentence, not quoted, "shows that Shagar is treating postmodernism as an ism to adopt rather than the current condition of our lives like the prior existential-psychological era that we did not choice but were embedded within." R Shagar builds a case for the condition of believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. An inability to believe that something is objectively true into the belief in of an objective Ayin. Help? 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 Tue Jun 14 14:10:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:10:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 16:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:00:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <598c06.3f27511.4491e6a3@aol.com> [1] From: Micha Berger via Avodah Subject: Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? [--R' Marty Bluke] I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowdlerized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org [2] From: Simi Peters via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. .... It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. ....Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters [3] From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah Subject: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth >>I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her?<<[--R' Marty Bluke] As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. .... So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love...lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana >>>>> [1] Over the years I too have wondered about the use of the word "margalosav" instead of "raglosav" and came to a similar conclusion to RMB's, that is, since "margolios" are pearls, the pasuk might be talking about the family jewels. However I did not assume that Rus /actually/ uncovered Boaz in that way but rather, that uncovering his feet was a way to hint to him that he should uncover something else -- not that night, but in due course. That he should act as her goel, that he should marry her and have children with her. [2] Yes, Boaz liked her and admired her but when Chazal say that the evening was a great nisayon for him they are clearly saying that on that night, he was attracted to her and had the desire and opportunity to sin. The nisayon was much more than "he didn't want to hurt her feelings." And she wasn't so "lonely and socially isolated"-- she could easily have married a much younger man, as Boaz says when he speaks of her great chessed in approaching him instead of going after the bachurim. [3] The idea that he was "deeply in love with her" is a stretch but yes, he clearly had feelings for her. Until that night I would say his feelings were mainly protective and paternal -- he always called her "biti, my daughter" -- but that night, under those circumstances, a yetzer hara was aroused that does not seem to have been there before. After all, months had passed and he had not suggested marriage, which was the very reason Naomi resorted to such an unconventional strategy. [4] I want to add one more point, which is that not all old men are the same. R' MBluke started this thread by asking why this should be such a nisayon when Boaz was "the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man." That the Gadol Hador could be overtaken by illicit desires we already know from many previous incidents involving Yehuda, Shimshon, Dovid Hamelech and others. As for old men, many lose desire as well as the ability to act on their desires, but we know that this was not the case with Boaz from the very fact that he did indeed father a child with Rus. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 15:49:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:30:47AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* :> a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" :> on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) : The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo : tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only : an asmachta. And later: :> 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made :> the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the :> case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between :> Torah and rabbinic law. : This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and : then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the : opinion of the Ran. What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling you why the pasuq "lo sasur" is not an azahara, and not a complete denial that the power to make a derabanan is from the Torah. As the Ramban puts it, shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on the pasuq. Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: :>: R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating :>: explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not :>: necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what :>: Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that :>: a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If :>: every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... ... : His point is that we as human : beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when : making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the : act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to : their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the : action. I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects their legislation. Or, ein hatzibur yalhol la'amod bam, which is the category all the MC's examples demonstrate. In either case, he talks about the difference between a deOraisa, where one might ch"v eat chazir because of a safeiq and a derabbanan where, as you put it "the value is in listening to their words". It is from that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. 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 Tue Jun 14 16:24:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:24:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160614232420.GB5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:23am CEST, R Arie Folger quoted Yechezqeil ben Buzi haKohein (44:23): : Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. : "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and : profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" RAYK (MiDevar Shor 16) writes that this is why we're called "beni bekhori Yisrael". The kehunah of the bekhor, to serve as either shaliach haMaqom to the family, or their shaliach before Him. See or . Also see Mal'akhei 2:7, for a similar definition of kehunah (WRT benei Aharon): Ki sifsei khohein yishmeru da'as veSorah yebaqshu mipihu.... RAYK's point is much like the LR's words when launchind the Noachide campaign: A particular task [is] to educate and to encourage the observance of the Seven Laws among all people. The religious tolerance of today, and the trend towards greater freedom, gives us the unique opportunity to enhance widespread observance of these laws. For it is by adherence to these laws, which are in and of themselves an expression of Divine goodness, that all humankind is united and bound by a common moral responsibility to our Creator. This unity promotes peace and harmony among all people, thereby achieving the ultimate good. As the Psalmist said: "How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 04:39:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:39:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon wrote: > So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was > deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it > only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his > wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world > to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at > his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 05:25:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:25:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I agree that "deeply in love" is probably be too much - but I think it is quite plausible that he was falling in love with her, whether he realized it before that night or not. It certainly makes it much easier to understand the nisayon if that is the case. And even if romantic love is much more emphasized in our time and culture than many others, I find it unlikely that it did not exist at all in Biblical times. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 13:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:44:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> I said that ?Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her.? This is not a claim that he was ?in love with her? (nusah 21st century) and is not the projection of a Western conception of Romantic love (nusah 14th century). Men and women have always been attracted to each other and loved each other which has, b?H, ensured the survival of the human race. Yitzhak avinu is described as loving Rivka imenu (after marriage); Yaakov avinu is described as loving Rahel imenu and Mikhal bat Shaul is described as loving David (in both cases before marriage. What is being described is an emotion, not an action.) And while Shir haShirim is allegorical, the allegory describes a profound, intense and sensual love. Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. Hazal do not find strange the idea that an old man might have sexual feeling and reactions. (Consider their description of David and Avishag in the presence of Batsheva.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From: Marty Bluke [mailto:marty.bluke at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:40 PM To: Ilana Elzufon Cc: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group ; Simi Peters Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon > wrote: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 23:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:39:55PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us : projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a : situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". When it comes to Yaaqov and Rachel, we find even more explicit description of a couple who who romantically in love. "Vaya'avod Yaaqov beRacheil 7 shanim, vayihyu be'einav kayamim achachdim be'ahavaso osahh". I think that academic claims of how much the human condition has changed over the millennia need to be checked against our belief that while TSBP evolves over time, halakhah does its redemptive work for generation after generation. Yes, many things have changed. The industrialist who relates to time with the linear instruments of a clock and day planner experiences something very different than the farmer's cycles of day and night and of annual seasons. Both of which are very different than the post-telecom experience of time which is dominated by events to respond to (phone, email, text/IM), more so than a preplanned schedule. But far more stays the same than would make for good PhD theses. 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 Jun 15 23:38:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:38:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. A ra'ayah for the Ramban is Yevamos 61a, which says that zenus (eg WRT marrying a kohein) is relations between two people who are not allowed to marry. Not all two people who aren't actually married. The Rambam (lav 355) cites the Sifra, Qedoshim 77. However, the Sifra inside distinguishes between being mechalel one's daughter lesheim zenus vs not lesheim zenus. So I don't get it. 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 Thu Jun 16 01:36:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:36:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They > try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak > metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". Truthfully, I never understood that whole story. Avraham was very well known generally and certainly by Avimelech and it was common knowledge that Avraham had a "miracle" son at the age of 100 but no daughters. How could this ruse have possible worked? Additionally, how could Yitzchak and Rivka have been meshamesh bayom where someone could see them? In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came after he married her and brought her into his tent. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Simi Peters wrote: > Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud > with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not > have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: >: The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >: any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >: malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. Even the Ramban who says that there is no technical issur d'oraysa, would probably declare this kind of behaviour is naval birshus hatorah and certainly not what the Gadol Hador should be doing. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 05:47:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:47:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gemara narrative Message-ID: <23bc4e6f392f4404bbfbd7d994e281a8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you are learning gemara and you come to a give and take where the hava amina seems strange (e.g. maakot 14a where the gemaras first assumes the rabbanan learn a din from lchaleik yatzah and ask where does R' Yitzchak learn it from. Gemara answers from a different pasuk and then asks why don't the rabbanan learn it from there. the answer is ein haci nami?! -- so why record the whole misattribution of reason, and how did they know/not know) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 01:47:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:47:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling > Ramban puts it, > shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah > aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma > lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav > As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power > to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on > the pasuq. > Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that > following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu > bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With your formulation that question still arises. > Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: ... >: His point is that we as human >: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when >: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the >: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to >: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the >: action. > I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el > Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects > their legislation. If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 08:10:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:10:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616151039.GF25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:47:01AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: :> As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power :> to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on :> the pasuq. :> Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that :> following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu :> bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. : The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on : lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With : your formulation that question still arises. With a mitzvah de'oraisa, oso lav is deOraisa. We do not cook meat with milk because of a derashah from a pasuq that is specifically about oso lav -- basar bechalav. With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav. (Earlier version had "bachaleiv imo", but mentioning bird milk seems too silly even for an imaginary pasuq.) I find the question cleanly -- and to my thinking, intuitively -- avoided. AISI, my read of the Ramban is an intuitive take on the chiluq. :> Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: : ... :>: His point is that we as human :>: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when :>: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the :>: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to :>: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the :>: action. :> I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el :> Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects :> their legislation. : If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. As I said, cart-and-horse. The causality is that the rejection is being offered "in response" (kevayakhol) to the law. Not that the law is to be rejected because they failed to respond to His Will. Yes, whether A causes B or B causes A, you still end up with both. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:07:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:07:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, : the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came : after he married her and brought her into his tent. I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" in differing ways. 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 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:12:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:12:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> What are the pragmatic reasons? In particular what happens when the reason for the derabbanan no longer exists. Is there a difference on the origin of the derabbanan? One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:58:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:58:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:12:28PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos :> as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans :> which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. : What are the pragmatic reasons? Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. OTOH, a gezeirah is pragmatic -- nothing happenms to you for vioolating it. The whole thing is a means of preventing ending up committing a real sin. Is there power to lighting a menorah of Chanukah, or did Chazal just have to pick /something/ to standardize how people fulfil the general deOraisa of commemorating a neis? Second day yom tov nowadays, does it connect to some supernal koakh, as the SA haRav says? Or is it a way to keep alive memory that the calendar ought to be al pi re'iyah? : In particular what happens when the reason : for the derabbanan no longer exists. The fact that the consumer is totally disconnected from shechitah and kashering nowadays might have rendered the gezeira of owf bechalav superfluous. People have little reason to confuse the rules of one with the other. But even if it's true that the reason stated in the gemara no longer exists, would anyone would say it is therefore no longer in force? Even though the motive is pragmatic., Is this baserd on the idea that we have to be chosheshim for unstated reasons and those may not be pragmatic? What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:10:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:10:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did sleep together. I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. Ben ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah > : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get > : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:07:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:07:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> On 06/16/2016 03:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >> : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >> : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. >> >> Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. > In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did > sleep together.I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they did more than that. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:18:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. > > One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual > damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of > that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or > psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite > taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. > If one assumes that the only problem is rebellion like the netivot then milk in poultry has no spiritual damage (the problem is gavra not cheftza) > > > : In particular what happens when the > reason > : for the derabbanan no longer exists. > > What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out > any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all > to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. > Not all takanot are to protect a deoraita. In any case the original question was why we are obligated by these takanot > > : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic > : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists > > Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention > anyway. > Not all kinyanim. More importantly not every monrtary takanah in shas has to do with kinyanim. There are loads of takanot for the good of commerce. In the change from an agragrian society to a business society to a high tech society much is no longer relevant -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 01:00:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:00:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:08 PM > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, >: the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came >: after he married her and brought her into his tent. > I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. > In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in > love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in > particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" > in differing ways. Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman (40 years old, according to Hazal). Rut is a lonely woman. She knows that she is a social pariah, looked upon with suspicion as a Moabite and not likely to bask in the social glow of Naomi's connections because Naomi abandoned them all during the famine and has very little social capital herself. This is why she tells Naomi that she will go gleaning where they will let her--she's expecting to be thrown out of some places. This is also part of the reason Boaz tells her to stay in his field--he knows the social climate of his town. And Naomi is extremely surprised that Rut has come back with so much grain; it means that someone has helped her--not something Naomi expected under the circumstances. Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). The halakha was still in dispute well into the lifetime of David (Yevamot). Tov (aka Ploni Almoni) is practically in a panic when he refuses the marriage to Rut--he wants the field, but no strings attached "pen ash'hit et nahalati." Only Boaz has the guts to champion Rut's cause because he has the authority to do so, has the social clout to do so, he cares about her, and he is touched by her trust in him and her courage in coming to speak to him at the goren. Rut's acceptance into society only comes with her marriage to Boaz and Naomi's rehabilitation with her neighbors only comes with the birth of Oved. [Email #2 -micha] I believe that 'margelotav' is like 'merashotav' (Bereshit 28:11). The 'mem' is not part of the shoresh and I don't think it is a pun. It may be an oblique reference to halitza and, by extension, to yibum, a delicate way of indicating that, while what Naomi wants for Rut is not technically yibum, it is the yibum-like 'hakamat shem be'nahala'. See the perush of the Malbim on the mitzvah of yibum, where he compares the mitzvah to the yibum-like story of Yehuda and Tamar on the one hand, and Rut and Boaz on the other. When a man says to a woman, "You could marry anybody. Why have you picked me?" that is a compliment, not necessarily a statement of fact. Part of what impresses Boaz about what Rut has done is that she is willing to marry an old man when that goes against the nature of things. As Hazal say on this pasuk, a woman would prefer to marry a young, poor man rather than an old, rich man (gold diggers aside). Rut has set aside her natural inclinations in order to do hesed for her mother-in-law. The words may also be read as an expression of Boaz's sense of gratitude and wonder in finding his one-in-a- million woman (and Rut is indeed exceptional) especially at a time in his life when he did not expect to marry again. When Boaz encounters Rut he has just gotten up from shiva for his wife. Either way, Boaz is not commenting on Rut's bountiful marriage prospects, which are pretty much non-existent (as I argued in the previous post.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 05:18:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:18:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: RnSP: Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as > the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her > mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite > and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because > it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly > idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). > Does Boaz's idealism extend to not quite grasping how different his attitude towards Rut is from everyone else's? His response when she comes to the goren seems to indicate that he had assumed she had many marriage options from among the younger men. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:04:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:04:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> Message-ID: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. Ben On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > > It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same > bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they > did > more than that. > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:57:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> On 06/17/2016 09:04 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Ben > > On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> >> It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same >> bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they >> did more than that. > Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira > it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? Yes, exactly. > That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. No, it doesn't. It has no connection whatsoever to that machlokes, and I'm astonished that you see a connection. *Everyone* agrees that there is no issur mid'oraisa on a man and woman sharing a bed, even if she's *definitely* a niddah, let alone if it's only a possibility. Everyone agrees that nowadays it's assur mid'rabanan, even if she's only possibly a niddah. Everyone also agrees that nowadays there's an issur yichud even if she's definitely *not* a niddah. None of this has any connection to the machlokes about what level of issur is involved in an unmarried couple having sex. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 07:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 17 11:03:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! Message-ID: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise thought of on our own. He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: 1. A town has a single shochet. A younger shochet wants to move in to town with the latest "shochet" technology -- whatever that is. The point is that he thinks he can provide his services more efficiently and at less cost to the community. In this case, the gemara tells us (al pi this rav-writer) that the beis din of the town can decide that the town can't support the competition, and weigh the fact that the older shochet might be put out of business, etc. I.e., the beis din has a lot of room to enforce a non-competitive monopoly here. 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- competition that might provide a better product is more important than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. The point that this writer was making, again, is that this distinction is not something we might have thought on our own. I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 12:47:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 22:47:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of the wheat harvest.) So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters -----Original Message----- From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 5:13 PM To: Rn Simi Peters ; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Marty Bluke ; Rn Toby Katz Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 14:01:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:01:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> Message-ID: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same >> gezira. > > Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:39:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I'm wondering if you considered the possibility that "lo bashamayim hee" might teach us that their legislation IS His will, by definition. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 14:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:35:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom _______________________________________________ It's complex! Enjoy http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:23:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allen Gerstl via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 70 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 R' Sholom Simon wrote: > 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a > teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks > he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage > competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out > of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- > competition that might provide a better product is more important > than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. . . . > > I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they > all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! > > I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this > idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Please see http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html The above issue is discussed at about footnote 22 (about three quarters of the way down in the article) and the Gemorah cited is Baba Batra 21b-22a I recall a similar question coming before the late Rav Gedaliah Felder, the posek of Toronto and that he told a group of us participating in a shiur that he gave. He had ruled as above. KT Eliyahu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:17:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:17:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> On 06/18/2016 05:01 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >>> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. >> >> Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > > That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping > in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate > any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion > about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Sorry, you're contradicting the very Taz you're invoking. He says *explicitly* that the issue he's discussing is being in the same bed, not anything else. Because as we all know it's forbidden for a man to be in the same bed as a niddah, even if they don't touch each other. And *that* is the question the Taz asks about Boaz and Ruth. If she was a niddah then how could they be in the same bed? And he answers that the gezera had not yet been made, so she wasn't a niddah. The same answer explains how Yehuda and Tamar could have sex; the gezera that would make her a niddah hadn't yet been enacted. The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything more into it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:03:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:03:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I believe it's a Chazon Ish. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > thought of on our own. > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:45:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: <20160619034555.GA2854@aishdas.org> Anyone interested in our perrennial about minhag avos and minhag hamaqom would likely be interested in R' David Brofsky's Teasers: ... Individual Customs The Torah teaches that in addition to the obligations and prohibitions imposed by the Torah, an individual has the ability to create personal obligations (Vayikra 5:4) or prohibitions (Bemidbar 30:3), known as nedarim and shevuot ... Family Customs As we shall see below, the Talmud teaches that one is also obligated to observe the customs of one's locality (minhag ha-makom), even if one leaves the place, until permanently relocating in another place. In addition to observing the custom of one's "place," is there a halakhically binding category of minhag avot, according to which one would be obligated to follow the customs of one's family? ... Local or Communal Customs As mentioned above, the Talmud (Pesachim 50a) teaches that one is obligated to observe the "minhag ha-makom", local custom. This obligation, as we shall see, is incumbent upon the residents of that place. Where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Passover until midday one may do [work]; where it is the custom not to do [work], one may not do [work]. ... Minhag and Pesak Halakhah In addition to being bound by local extra-halakhic customs, the Talmud teaches that if it is customary in a certain place to follow a specific halakhic view, that halakhic opinion becomes binding. For example, the Gemara[39] relates: ... Gut Voch! -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 Sun Jun 19 03:33:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:33:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and other differences between biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. <> what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to protect deoraisa laws. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 02:25:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 12:25:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> References: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:27 AM, wrote: > > > In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field > until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three > months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer > until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..* > That raises a whole other set of questions, namely when and how was Rus misgayer? Rashi at the beginning of the Megila claims that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women and Rus was only megayer later. Others claim that it can't be that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women so it must be that they were megayer them. The Bach for example states that Rus was megayer to marry at the beginning and then later was megayer a second time lshem shamayim. R' Shternbuch in Moadim Uzmanim claims that they were minors and therefore when they came of age could be moche and therefore Rus was megayer a second time (ayen sham). Therefore it is pretty difficult to tie the 3 months into the geirus. In any case the din of waiting 3 months is a din drabbanan of havchana, that you should be able to tell the difference between a child conceived as a non-Jew versus a child conceived as a Jew. For all we know this din drabbanan had not yet been formulated in the days of Boaz and therefore is irrelevant. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 21:27:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:27:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> In a message dated 6/18/2016 3:48:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, familyp2 at actcom.net.il writes: So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters >>>> In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:16:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:16:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160619121630.GC24863@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:47:45PM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley : harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they : won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end : of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of : the wheat harvest.) ... I thought "ad kelos se'ir hase'orim uqetzir hachitim" referred to the end of the overlap time. Which is how I got such a tight estimate. You appear to be reading it "until the end of the barley harvest, [and then beyond, until] the end of the wheat harvest." Which, despite needing the bracketed insertion, is quite plausible. But not the assumption I had been working with. In any case, even in a matter of months, we would still be talking about romantic love. To my mind, any couple in love before the love that that grows out of building a life together are experiencing romantic love. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:27:47AM -0400, RnTK wrote: : In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field : until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months : because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she : can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) The harvest season isn't three months, even according to RnSP's understanding of the pasuq. And that taqanah derabbanan almost certainly didn't exist yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160619120740.GB24863@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 01:33:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to :> obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH :> said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav : : The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and : other differences between : biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and : milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. At this point our topic is broader than that. We are back one step at whether lo sasur is a derashah or an asmachta. Yes, if every derabbanan is "lo sasur", then we need to ask about safeiq derabbanan lequlah. But if not, what is the source of their authority-- REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" Which then raised the question of whether following chakhamim actually is living according to the design of the world, as REW holds, or :> What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out :> any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all :> to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to : protect deoraisa laws. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. 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 Sun Jun 19 05:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:37:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:21:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> Message-ID: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing before marrying a woman. When people get married, they don't just sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Ben On 6/19/2016 5:17 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth > did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything > more into it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: < What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. > I am not claiming anything metaphysical. It just seems to me that not all rabbinical decrees are to help a deoraisa. I am certainly not baki enough to go through every rabbinical law but certainly some others include eruvin, most importantly almost all berachot, davening (certainly according to those that disagree with Rambam), shevat brachot. As I said before there are loads of decrees in monetary matters that are not just nezikin including prozbul, takanat hashuk, bar metzra. Again I would have to review the 3 Babas to come up with a more detailed list. Even in hilchot shabbat/yomtov we have candle lighting and other aspects of oneg, much of the seder, -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 21:15:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> <576766B2.50408@sero.name> Message-ID: <57676DE5.2000701@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 11:44 PM, I wrote: > On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the >> halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing >> before marrying a woman. > > There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. I just realised my meaning may not have been completely plain. What I meant by this is that they can have a chuppas niddah. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 20:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the > halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing > before marrying a woman. There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. The halacha in question is that when a woman agrees to get married she is presumed to have become a niddah, and must therefore count 7 days like any niddah. (Note that it's not the proposal that triggers this, nor is it her verbal acceptance, but her internal decision to accept it.) The Taz quotes the Maggid Mishneh that this is midrabanan, and says that this explains two problems we would have if it were mid'oraisa. One is Yehuda and Tamar: *not* how they could have sex, but how she could have told him that she was tehora, when by definition she has just become temeiah. The second was Boaz and Ruth: how they could have slept in the same bed. He says this *explicitly* so I don't understand how anyone can possibly misunderstand it. > When people get married, they don't just > sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and > finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Again, you are contradicting the very Taz you are quoting. He says in so many words that the problem we would have with Boaz and Ruth, if this halacha were mid'oraisa, is that she entered his bed. How can you claim that's not his concern, when he says it is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 11:42:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160620184259.GC12092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:37:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" : which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa I think quite the reverse. His saying that we follow the rabbis because not heading their advice would be stupid does not actually make the derabbanan mandatory. And I still think the Ramban is saying that the power of chazal to legislate is from lo sasur, but that does not elevate the product of their legislation to deOraisa. Thus his repeated reference to "zeh halav" in distinction to "'lo sasur' keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah". This makes a strong contrast to R' Mesamyah's position, "sheyeish bikhlal lav de-'lo sasur' kol mah shhu midivrei chakhamim..." One might employ parallel logic to REW's shitah, if it proves necessary. Remember that the Ramban's central problem isn't the same as the one which led us to this discussion. He is defending the idea that "lo sasur" is one of the 613, but (unlike the Behag) the particular mitzvos derabbanan are not each counted among them. Safeiq derabbanan lequlah is tangential to his main point, and more noted than explained. Also, I repeatedly contrasted the Meshekh Chokhmah's position (Devarim 17:11), that mitzvos derabbanan are "pragmatic", meaning the iqar is obedience, as opposed to conforming to Retzon Hashem, which I characterized as having metaphysical effect - or avoiding negtive effects. And since they're about obedience, borderline cases like safeiq derabbanan which are not rebellious can be meiqil, we do not have to worry about spiritual damage. If the mitzvah had inherent value aside from obedience, safeiq derabbanan lequlah would be a license to play Russian Roullete. I realized Retzon Hashem could also be framed less mystically in terms of desired ethics / relationship with Him, whether an asei to foster them or a lav to avoid flaws (a more rationalistic take on spiritual damage that is probably describing the same thing). Values and virtues. And in this formulation, there is no clear line between laws that Chazal would set up to implement a general deOraisa din (eg pirsumei nisa and ner Chanukah) and laws that implement His values. The broader mitzvos get kind of mussar-y / valu-ish. Like ve'asisa hayashar vehatov. On a related topic, 20 agurot from AhS Yomi. YD 201:206 (there are 218 se'ifim in the siman). There is a question whether a miqvah where most of the water is mayim she'uvim is pasul deOraisa or derabannan, or if even a miqvah that is entirely mayim she'uvim is "only" pasul miderabbanan. 3 positions: pasul deOraisa at rov, pasul deOraisa when there is entirely she'uvim, or never pasul deOraisa. The pesul derabbnan starts at 3 log is they were poured in before the 40 se'ah were complete; rov otherwise -- unless rov is deOraisa The Toras Kohanim learns the pesul of mayim she'uvim from "akh ma'yan uvor miqeih mayim" just as a maayan is made by G-d, so must the gathered water of a miqvah. But it is possible that this is an asmachta, or that it's a derashah about using actual tamei keilim but generalizing to she'uvim is asmachta, or... (See se'if 17) Now the relevant bit. In se'if 210, the AhS opines (nir'eh LAD) that because there is an asmachta, we cannot simply say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Thus ruling out the Rambam's idea that asmachtos are just mnemonic and polemic tools; he is saying they actually change the authority of the derabbanan. And if could change whether the iqar is obedience, limiting that possibility only to dinim derabbanan that have no asmachtos. IFF RYME buys into that idea at all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 08:31:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:31:48 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ie the current issue is about one who has specifically violated tora laws related to even haezer related issues. i wonder if crimes against secular governments would fall under the same type of reasoning , which as i understand , is only due to a 'bizayon hatora' . it would seem that any type of crime might fit that bill.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 12:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:45:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: , <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ------------------------------------ "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). 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 Mon Jun 20 13:57:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:57:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=24398 r reuven feinstein [around minute 35 ] responds on this tora umesora Q and A on how the haredi teacher should deal with Hallel on YH. thiswil presumably be more of a bedieved, since lechatchila schools that celebrate YH shouldn't have to rely on teachers that don't on there faculty, and increasingly may not need to.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 15:10:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:10:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> References: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160620221046.GA32539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:45:55PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is : not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). R' Shimon Shkop discusses this gemara near the end of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher. Leshitaso, there is a difference between a rebbe from whom "yevaqeish Torah mipihu" and learning from someone else, who could even be an Acher. But to my mind it is worth knowing and contemplating what our Sages said on Chagiga folio 15b. How could Rabbi Meir receive Torah from the mouth of Acheir [the former Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya, after he became a heretic]. Doesn't Rabba bar bar Chana quote R' Yochanan [in Chagiga as saying] "What does it mean when it says 'For the kohein's lips should keep knowledge; they should see Torah from his lips, for he is the angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts" (Malachi 2:7)? If the rav is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts, seek Torah from his mouth. And if not, do not seek Torah from his mouth." And the Talmud concludes, "There is no question this [Rabbi Meir studying under Acheir] is with someone great, this [the verse] is of someone of smaller stature." It is worth understanding according to this how Rabbi Yochanan spoke without elaboration, since he speaks only of the smaller statured, not the greats. One may say that we should be exacting in that Rabbi Yochanan said, "seek Torah from his mouth" and not "learn from him". For in truth, one who learns from his peer does not learn from the mouth of the person who is teaching him, but listens and weighs on the scales of his mind, and then he understands the concept. This is not learning "from the mouth of" his teacher, but from the mind of the teacher. "Torah from the mouth" is only considered accepting the concepts as he heard them, with no criticism. And it was by this idea that Rabbi Yochanan spoke about accepting Torah from the mouth [i.e. uncritically] only if the rabbi is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts. And according to this, in Rabbi Yochanan's words is hinted a distinction between who is of smaller stature and who is great. The one of smaller stature will learn Torah from the mouth, for he is unable to decide what to draw near and want to keep away. Whereas a person of great stature who has the ability to decide [critically] does not learn Torah from [someone else's] mouth. Similarly, it's appropriate to alert anyone who contemplates the books of acharonim that they should not "learn Torah from their mouths", they shouldn't make a fundamental out of everything said in their words before they explore well those words. Something similar to a reminder of this idea can be learned from what the gemara says in Bava Metzia, chapter "One Who Hires Workers" [85b]. Rabbi Chiya said, "I made it so that the Torah would not be forgotten from Israel." It explains there that he would plant linen, spread out nets [made of tat linen, thereby] hunt deer, made parchment [of their hides], and wrote [on them] chumash texts. This hints that whatever is in our power to prepare from the beginning of the Torah, it is incumbent on us to do ourselves, according to the ability that was inherited to us to explore and understand. And not to rely on the words of the gedolim who preceded us. 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 Tue Jun 21 02:57:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Potential Role of Orthodox Judaism in a "Fractured Republic" Message-ID: <20160621095708.GA20821@aishdas.org> [Rabbi] "Meir Soloveichik on Yuval Levin's 'The Fractured Republic'" or https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/meir-soloveichik-yuval-levins-fractured-republic ... Levin is undoubtedly correct about the state of American religion, both in diagnosis and prescription, and reading his book has made me more convinced that it is at this moment that American Orthodox Judaism may have found a unique calling. As Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik has pointed out, religious Jews have always sought to embody Abraham's identification of himself in the Bible as a ger vetoshav--a stranger and a neighbor, aware of what makes one different while engaging the world and, like Abraham in Canaan, speaking candidly and eloquently about why they are different. Last summer, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who is also a devout Christian, struck by how so many traditionalists feel that they now live in a culture not welcoming to them... As I argued in a recent symposium in Mosaic, the Jewish example can lead faith communities in a joint project to safeguard an America that will allow all of us to be "strangers and neighbors" --to fight for our religious freedom and distinctiveness, while also articulating a conservative vision of the American idea--and thereby illustrating how traditionalists can, in Levin's words, "live out their faiths and their ways in the world." 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 Tue Jun 21 14:13:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:13:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: <20160621211321.GA8586@aishdas.org> RGS posted a link to on Torah Musings: Jewish Action HALACHAH AND THE FALLEN RABBI: Q & A WITH RABBI HERSHEL SCHACHTER JA Mag | June 4, 2015 in Jewish Law By Avrohom Gordimer ... Jewish Action: Can one still follow the piskei halachah of a fallen rabbi? Rabbi Schachter: No. The pasuk in Navi (Malachi 2:7), as expounded by the gemara (Moed Katan 17a), says that a Torah teacher must be sinless and righteous like a malach (angel). According to the Torah, we only follow a rabbi's ruling if he properly models Torah behavior. If he is a ba'al aveirah, if he knowingly violates Biblical or rabbinic laws, he is not qualified to teach and render halachic rulings. When members of the public become aware of his improper behavior, they may no longer rely on his judgment for any rulings, unless it can be verified that such rulings were rendered before the rabbi's sinful conduct began. Since it is often not possible to ascertain when these rulings were rendered, one should ask another rabbi for a new pesak. Although people use [Marcus] Jastrow's [Aramaic] dictionary [for Talmudic and Midrashic terminology], and I was told that Jastrow was not Orthodox, that is different because that is an issue of translation, not pesak (halachic adjudication). For a pesak, a rabbi needs to consider all issues before him, and weigh and evaluate them. It is very different than mere translation. To issue halachic rulings, one must be part of the chachmei haMesorah (Torah scholars who follow the Torah's traditions). A rabbi who sins, especially if he commits a crime, is certainly not in this category. JA: What does one do with the sefarim written by such a rabbi? RS: They should not be used. Since his sefarim include his ideas and rulings, they fit into the prohibition against studying Torah from someone who is unfit due to his improper behavior. Any time someone writes a sefer, he fleshes out and resolves apparently contradictory passages. This is called being machria--providing one's own resolutions in Torah study. The type of person we are discussing is not qualified to be machria and, therefore, his sefarim cannot be used. If it can be verified that the sefarim and the halachic rulings were issued before this person's sinful behavior began, only then can they be relied upon and quoted. JA: Can we/should we continue to cite divrei Torah in his name? RS: We are not allowed to do so. The gemara (Avodah Zarah 35b) says that if a rabbi violates halachah, one cannot say divrei Torah in his name. The statements found in the Talmud in the name of Elisha Ben Abuya were made when he was still committed to Torah observance and belief (see Tosafot, Sotah 12b). If it would appear that the books and articles of the fallen rabbi were written before he began his sinful behavior, they may be used. ... This follows something we've noticed about RHS's position in the past. He holds that pesaq involves the poseiq's full Weltenschaung. To the extent that someone should be looking to posqim from his own camp in particular. >From Kol haMevaser (a school machashav newspaper from YU), 2010, by "Staff" http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-rabbi-hershel-schachter An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter ... Who is qualified to give a pesak Halakhah (halakhic ruling)? What makes his ruling binding upon a large group of people? ... A person has to have a strong tradition in Torah logic. Common sense has its own system of logic and so does Halachah. And to know Talmudic, halachic logic, you have to be learned in all areas of Torah. A posek cannot "specialize" in one area of Halachah alone. In order to be an expert in medical Halachah, you have to know Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohoros, because everything in Halachah is interconnected and interrelated. ... Which characteristics should a person look for when choosing a personal/family posek? Is it appropriate to choose one posek for one area of Halakhah and another for a different area? Is it problematic, halakhically or otherwise, for someone to ask she'eilot to a rabbi other than the leader of his or her shul/kehillah? The Mishnah says "aseh lecha rav" - you have to pick a rav to paskn all of your she'eilos. He has to first and foremost be very knowledgeable.... Second, he has to be humble. The Gemara says that we paskn like the Beis Hillel against the Beis Shammai, because, among other reasons, the Beis Hillel were more humble than the Beis Shammai... He also has to be an honest person. Sometimes you have a rabbi who is a politician and says one thing to one person and another thing to a different person, giving everyone the answer that he wants to hear. That is obviously inappropriate. Finally, he must be a yere Shamayim (God-fearer). The Gemara talks about why the pesakim of talmidei chachamim are binding and says that it is because "sod Hashem li-yere'av" - God gives the secrets of understanding the Torah to those who fear Him. Usually, we assume that the more learned one is, the more yir'as Shamayim he has. If, however, the rabbi of my choice is very learned but seems, unfortunately, to lack yir'as Shamayim, he is not ra'ui (worthy) to receive divine assistance in figuring out what the dinim are. And one off-topic teaser: What does it mean that koah de-hetteira adif (the power of permissibility is greater) and how does one apply that rule? How does this principle accord with concepts like ha-mahamir, tavo alav berakhah (blessing should descend upon the stringent) and yere Shamayim yetse yedei sheneihem (a God-fearer tries to fulfill both)? When, if ever, is it a good idea to take upon oneself a personal humra (stricture)? (REMT already posted the same answer here years ago...) Also, there is , which RET brought to the chevrah's attention in Feb 2014 and RAM transcribed parts of. But then we were talking about that shiur's primary subject -- "Da'as Torah - What are its Halachic Parameters in Non-Halachic Issues?" 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 Wed Jun 22 00:56:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:56:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: <> If I read ir correctly this is from 2008 (not that the halachot have changed). In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. Today with the abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 09:25:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:25:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes. Now that makes sense in a neoplatonic framework, but it needs a new foundation today. This is a particular issue because in Ish HaHalacha RYBS describes these same ideas as a priori categories, and a good Kantian would attribute a priori categories, not to an objective realm, but to the structure of human thought. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 12:54:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:54:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: , <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) Kol tuv Joel rich Sent from my iPad On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: I've been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 22 14:55:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:55:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: I read it. It?s very good, and it?s what prompted me to reread Uvikashtem Misham. It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious justification. The book you cited is RYB?s exposition of the Rambam?s views, but UM is his exposition of his own views. Those are the views that require justification. DR > On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > > You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: > aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan > > This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) > Kol tuv > Joel rich > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: > >> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. >> >> Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? >> >> David Riceman >> _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Jun 22 19:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:24:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <576B485F.8020001@sero.name> On 06/22/2016 05:55 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: > It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use > neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious > justification. Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they make testable claims that can be refuted? If you mean merely that it's no longer fashionable, why should that matter? We Jews have never let fashion dictate our philosophies, and why should we? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 03:29:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:29:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20160623102930.GA24267@aishdas.org> [I also address Zev's question in this post. If yuou are only interested in that, scrol down to the line of """"""...) On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:25:01PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes : from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes... From: http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia , where I complained more of the Rambam's placing knowledge as more central to human redemption than ethic. I also noted indication that RYBS understood the Rambam differently. I simply didn't understand how, given the citations I quoted. In "Text & Texture", the RCA blog, R' Alex Sztuden suggests answers from R' JB Soloveitchik's writings to questions given on R' Soloveitchik's 1936 final exam in Jewish Philosophy. (Thereby showing that these questions were ones R' Soloveitchik considered during much of his life.) The first question, which had two parts: I.a. What is the basic idea of the "Intellectualist Theory" of the religious act? In Halakhic Mind (41-43), the Rav distinguishes between 3 different views of emotional states (and by implication, of religious states): 1. Emotions are non-cognitive. They do not express any facts or statements about the world. In a footnote, the Rav cites Hume as a typical example of this view: "Hume denied the intentional character of our emotional experiences: `A passion is an original existence...and contains not any representative quality which renders it a copy of any other existence or modification. When I am angry, I am actually possessed with the passion, and in that emotion have no more a reference to any other object, than when I am thirsty, or sick or five feet tall...'" (116, footnote 49). 2. Emotions have a cognitive component. In fact, "every intentional act is implicitly a cognitive one...by way of simple illustration, the statement `I love my country' may be broken down into three components: I. There exists a country - predication; II. This object is worthy of my love - valuation; [and] III. I love my country - consummation of the act." (43). According to the Rav, I. ("There exists a country") is a statement of fact that is in effect contained by and in the emotion. Emotions are not irrational outpourings of the heart. They make claims about the world. 3. Emotions are cognitive, but they are confused ideas. This is the Intellectualist Theory of Emotions (and religious states). "Of course, the intellectualistic school, regarding the emotional and volitional activities as modi cogitandi, had to admit some relationship between them and the objective sphere. Owing, however to the contempt that philosophers and psychologists had for the emotional act which they considered an idea confusa..." b. What are the conclusions? Criticism. The intellectualist theory correctly perceived that emotions were cognitive, but incorrectly assumed that they were inferior forms of cognition, confused ideas. For the Rav, all psychic states are intentional, and religious acts therefore contain a cognitive component, subject to elaboration, refinement and critique on its own terms. In RYBS's understanding of the Rambam, the line I am making between perfection of virtue and perfetion of knowledge simply isn't there, or is at best blurry. Which is implied by the use of the word da'as in naming "hilkhos dei'os". And yet in my blog post, I have all that counterevidence. Like the beginning of the Moreh, where he talks about the need for moral and emotional perfection being a consequence of the eitz hada'as, inferior to the prior bechitah based on emes alone, or his ranking of human perfections at the close of the Moreh, his comparing Aristo to prophets, etc... In his interview with R/Dr Alan Brill, it appears that R/Dr Lawrence Kaplan, who produced the book built from RYBS's notes on the Moreh, doesn't see RYBS's take in the Rambam aither. From or https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/rav-soloveitchik-on-the-guide-of-the-perplexed-edited-by-lawrence-kaplan Hermann Cohen's modern reading of Maimonides as ethical and Platonic was instrumental in the 20th century return to Maimonides and especially Soloveitchik's understanding of Maimonides. This lectures in this volume show how Soloveitchik both used and differed with Cohen. ... Kaplan notes that Soloveitchik's readings of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas are "highly controversial" meaning that they are less confrontations with the texts of those thinkers and more the reception and rejection as found in early 20^th century thinkers. His German Professors considered idealism as superseding the classics and Russell considered science and positivism as superseding the ancient. For these works, Maimonides was relegated to the medieval bin. Soloveitchik was going to save the great eagle. ... For Soloveitchik concern for others and responsibility for fellows as hesed is the inclusion of the other in the cosmic vision. Just as God is inclusive of the world and knows the world because it is part of Him, the Talmud scholar knows about people through his universal understanding. Kaplan points out how this is completely the opposite of Jewish thinkers such as Levinas where you actually confront the other and through the face of a real other person gains moral obligation. (I am certain that Soloveitchik pantheistic-Idealist view of ethics will elicit some comments. ) ... 2) Could you elaborate on the claim that Maimonides considers Halakhah as secondary to philosophy? How does R. Soloveitchik counter this approach? This is an old objection to Maimonides. The claim is that Maimonides follows Aristotle in maintaining that knowledge is superior to morality, both moral virtue and moral action, and, furthermore, in arguing that only intellectual knowledge possesses intrinsic value, while morality possesses only instrumental worth, serving only as a steppingstone to attaining intellectual perfection. From this it would follow that Halakhah, dealing with action, is of lesser worth than science, and that Talmud Torah, that is, the study of Halakhah, is inferior to the study of the sciences. The Rav--inaccurately by the way--quotes Graetz as stating that Maimonides in the Guide "sneered at halakhic scholarship." The Rav counters this objection by claiming that Maimonides distinguishes between two stages of ethics: pre-theoretical ethics, ethical action that precedes knowledge of the universe and God, and post-theoretical ethics, ethical action that follows upon knowledge of the universe and God. Pre-theoretical ethics is indeed inferior to theory and purely instrumental; however, post-theoretical ethics is ethics as the imitation of God's divine attributes of action of Hesed (Loving Kindness), Mishpat, (Justice), and Tzedakah (Righteousness), the ethics referred to at the very end of the Guide, and this stage of ethics constitutes the individual's highest perfection. 3) It sounds as if here Soloveitchik is just following Hermann Cohen. The Rav, as he himself admits, takes the basic distinction between pre-theoretical ethics and post- theoretical ethics from Hermann Cohen, but his understanding of the imitation of the divine attributes of action involved in post-theoretical ethics differs from Cohen. Cohen, following Kant's thought, distinguishes sharply between practical and theoretical reason, ethics and the natural order, "is" and "ought." For Cohen, God's attributes of action do not belong to the realm of causality, but to that of purpose; they are not grounded in nature, but simply serve as models for human action. What Cohen keeps apart, the Rav--and here he is, in my view and the view of others, for example, Avi Ravitzky and Dov Schwartz, more faithful to the historical Maimonides--brings together. For the Rav, the main divine attribute of action is Hesed, God's abundant lovingkindness, His "practicing beneficence toward one who has no right" to such beneficence. The prime example of Hesed, for Maimonides, is the creation of the world. This act of creation is both an ethical act, whereby God freely wills the world into existence, and an ontological act, an overflow of divine being, whereby God brings the world into being by thinking it. However, the Rav goes beyond what Maimonides states explicitly by maintaining that the deepest meaning of God's Hesed is that he not only confers existence upon the world, but continuously sustains it by including the existence of reality as whole in His order of existence. 4) Is this the basis of Soloveitchik's claim that Maimonides is a pantheist? I think he means "panentheist". But here we drift from the topic, so I am ending my too-length quote. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:24:31PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited : neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they : make testable claims that can be refuted? The law of conservation of momentum. Aristo's entire metaphysics is tied to his notion in physics that objects move when they are given impetus, and continue moving until the impetus runs out. Imetus is imparted by intellects. Intellect is what brings something min hakoach el hapo'al. Thus the Rambam's belief that the spheres -- the spinning transparent shells of quintessence in which the heavenly objects are embedded -- were intellects. Because otherwise, they would have had to stop spinning by now. And his identification of mal'akhim with Aristotle's chain of intellects, making them the metaphysical forces behind natural events and the metaphysics by which Hashem's decisions reach the world. But now we replaced the spheres with orbits, mathematical non-entities, the product of momentum and the gravity of the bodied involved. So yes, because Philosophy included Natural Philosophy, and mataphysics wend hand-in-hand with Physics to create a single picture of how the world works, Aristotilian neo-Platonism like the Rambam's philosophy did make testable claims. And those were falsified. 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 Jun 23 03:33:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: Chazon Ish Emunah & Bitochon perek 3 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Gershon via Avodah wrote: > I believe it's a Chazon Ish. > On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah < > avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > > thought of on our own. > > > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: > ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 04:45:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:45:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How would you analyze the amount of "bother" you should go to in Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? 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 Thu Jun 23 08:17:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:17:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <576BFD98.9040206@sero.name> On 06/23/2016 07:45 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in > Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to > get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the > benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether > the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 12:19:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:19:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning Message-ID: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the bracha before Krias Shema. The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved only through learning Torah. Without limud haTorah, any feelings of longing that a person may have for the Jewish way of life as practiced in the old kehillos of the towns and villages of Europe do not represent the love or fear of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Rather, they are mostly nostalgic sentiments, somewhat like that which is expressed by the song "Mein Shtetele Belz. " They have no real connection with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Such a connection can be achieved only through limud ha Torah. One cannot fear or love something that is only an idea. By learning Torah, we recognize the reality of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and, consequently, can achieve both ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem. Love and fear are really contradicting relationships. One either fears another, or loves him. Love draws one to something, and fear repels one from it. We therefore ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this tefillah that in our relationship to Him, He allow us to have both sentiments, that of our love for Him, together with our fear of violating His will. This is the meaning of v'ychad levavainu? To "fear" HaKadosh Baruch Hu does not mean that one must constantly tremble before Him. Rather, it means that one is to be afraid to violate His will. This is similar to the fear a driver has of going through a red light, which does not mean that he sits in his car and trembles. On the contrary, he can be very relaxed, while at the same time being acutely aware of the danger to his life should he go through that red light. This "fear" actually makes driving very safe. Similarly, we ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu to unify our hearts, l'yachad. to love Him, while at the same time, to make us afraid of transgressing His will. YL __________________________ BTW, I highly recommend the sefer Rav Schwab on Prayer. It gives many insights into our davening that I was most certainly not aware of. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 13:56:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:56:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning In-Reply-To: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> References: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20160623205631.GA15414@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:19:51PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments : on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the : bracha before Krias Shema. : The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved : only through learning Torah... Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The first Tablets were made by G-d, like the body of writing as explained in the Torah. The latter Tablets were made by man [Moses], as it says "Carve for yourself two stone tablets." (Exodus 34:1) Tablets are things which cause standing and existence, that it's not "letters fluttering in the air." Since they were made by Hashem, they would stand eternally. But the second ones, which were man-made, only exist subject to conditions and constraints. The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was a symbol and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the Torah [since]. Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone Tablets", so too it is advice for all who receive the Torah. Each must prepare Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word of Hashem. According to his readiness in preparing the Tablets, so will be his ability to receive. If in the beginning or even any time after that his Tablets are ruined, then his Torah will not remain. This removes much of Moses' fear, because according to the value and greatness of the person in Awe/Fear of Hashem and in middos, which are the Tablet of his heart, this will be the measure by which heaven will give him acquisition of Torah. And if he falls from his level, by that amount he will forget his Torah, just as our sages said of a number of things that cause Torah to be forgotten. About this great concept our sages told us to explain the text at the conclusion of the Torah, "and all the great Awe Inspiring acts which Moses wrought before the eyes of all of Israel." (Devarim 34:12, the closing words of the Torah) This is in a long Litvisher tradition that yir'as Shamayim is a precondition t being able to learn. Not, as Rav Schwap is quoted here, a consequence. Although a positive feedback cycle is certainly a possibility. For example, from Nefesh haChaim 4:5: According to the vast arrangement of the silo of yir'ah that the person prepared for himself, it is through that arrangement that the grain of Torah will be able to enter and be protected within him, according to how much he strengthened his silo. It is [like] a father who divides grain for his sons. He divides and gives each one a measure of grain to match what the son's silo can hold, which he [the son] prepared beforehand. For even if the father wishes and his hand is open to give him more, the son cannot receive more since his silo is not big enough to hold more. So too the father cannot now give him more. And if the son did not prepare even a small silo, then also the father can not give him anything at all for he has no guarded place where it will remain with him. So too Hashem, may His name be blessed: His "Hand" is open, as it were, to constantly bestow every person according to his reward with much wisdom and extra understanding when it will be preserved by them and will be tied onto the slate of their hearts. Everything [is given] according to the volume of one's "silo." And if a person does not prepare even a small silo, which is that he does not, heaven forbid, have within him any yir'ah whatsoever for Him, may He be blessed, so too He, may He be blessed, will not bestow any wisdom at all, since it will not be preserved by him. For his Torah would become disgusting, heaven forbid, as our Rabbis, whose memories are a blessing, said. It is about this that the verse says, "the beginning of wisdom is yir'as Hashem," (Tehillim 111). This relates directly to another post of yours of quotes from RSoP. "Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah", thread at http://j.mp/28Q172y (or http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=R#RAV%20SHIMON%20SCHWAB%20ON%20WOMEN%20LEARNING%20TORAH ) In Feb you wrote: > The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. ... > A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim > because of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is > not the object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher > or scientist, but Torah is not philosophy or science. Torah is the way > Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us. > Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man, > can it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his yiras > Shamayim. Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud Torah, she > cannot utilize it as a means to increase her many ways of connection > to Hashem. And at some point I wrote: > I realize I do not have clarity on what RSS is referring to when he says > "yir'as Shamayim". > To the Ramchal is means by default yir'as hacheit, which in turn means > fear of doing the wrong thing because it's against His Will. (In contrast > to yir'as ha'onesh, fear of the sin's punishment, which is not real > yir'as Shamayim.) According to the Ramchal, also included in yir'ah is > yir'as haromemus. But those are all feelings. How could we make a blanket > statement ike "women do not learn to fear sinning or how awe-inspiring > G-d is by learning Torah"? (Whereas men can, or in True Scotsman style: > If a man didn't gain yir'as Shamayim, it wasn't *really* learning.) > So it seems to me RSS is speaking about something more specific. Perhaps > a relationship with ol mitzvos, which is why it is only generated by > a metzuvah ve'oseh performance. But even that would be iffy, because a > person can learn an emotional stance by imagining what it would be like > if... So that by learning, if the woman could empathetically imagine > what it would be like to be a man and compelled to learn as a mitzvah > in itself, wouldn't she still learn the yir'ah behind ol mitzvos? Now, that theory too has to be scrubbed. It looks like RSS is speakiong very speicifcally about fulfilling an obligation of talmud Torah. It's not a function of obligation in general (pg 300) nor of talmd Torah without the chiyuv (pg 274). So I REALLY have no clarity. 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 Fri Jun 24 02:14:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36431880-c73a-a5c8-e53d-25218ec972ef@zahav.net.il> There is also an ideological element to the reduced numbers. Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook strongly pressured the DL schools to not hire chareidi teachers (for obvious reasons). Ben On 6/22/2016 9:56 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. > Today with the > abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a > DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:17:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in Monsey. Ben On 6/23/2016 1:45 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in Eretz > Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get > birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit > of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah > is on the cohanim alone? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:01:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birkhat cohanim Message-ID: <> Certainly not a mitzvah in the formal sense of the word. However Rav Melamed explains that the chazzan (or someone in the congregation) calls out "cohanim" to signify that we wish to accept the blessing and only then can the cohanim begin see http://ph.yhb.org.il/02-20-07/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 05:20:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:20:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. > Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in > Monsey. > Ben The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. [Email #2. -micha] >> On 06/23/2016 07:45 Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? > Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > Zev The Haflaah among others. Listen here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/858947 Rabbi Ezra Schwartz-Duchening for non kohanim Kol tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 06:46:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576D399C.3070707@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 05:17 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. But only those who are in front of them, not those behind them. So I suppose any kohen, on any day, is only blessing half of Am Yisrael. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:12:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6deabf95-1f8d-0240-e958-c2518f9d8be0@zahav.net.il> On 6/24/2016 2:20 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one > stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. Because the people behind the cohenim are able to walk a couple of feet and choose not to whereas anyone else is considered anoos and therefore they are included in the bracha. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:17:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:17:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: >> How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in >> Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to >> get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the >> benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? >Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the kohanim. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:12:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 01:17 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >>Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > > The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer > Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the > kohanim. Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:10:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:10:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160624181048.GA19921@aishdas.org> In AhS yomi today, YD 240:34, RYME discusses the issur of listening to a parent who tells you to violate the din. One cannot discuss achei dokheh lav because the pasuq excludes such commands from a parent's authority. He ends: And memela, also in an issur derabbanan it is against the Torah. For HQBH commanded not to veer from anything the chakhamim say. So, those who say lo sasur is only an asmakhta for obeying a mitzvah derabbanan, do they say kibud av does include an order to violate a lave derabbanan? Or do they have a different sevara? :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:15:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160624181511.GB19921@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:54:09PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The : Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai : that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva See also AhS se'if 39, who says the same, but in more detail. The Lekhem Mishnah lmits the Machloqes to while the father is alive, saying that even the Rambam does not require KaVA of an evil parent fter their petirah. The Kesef Limits it to mishel ha'av, the son of an evil parent is not chayav lehachzir lo mishelo. And he believes Rashi explains the gemara in a manner consistent with the Tur's position. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:18:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev for a berakhah? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:22:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:22:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? > : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say > : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. > > Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev > for a berakhah? Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for women according to the BeHaG? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 01:54:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:54:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: R' Zev Sero asked: "Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed?" The Biur Halacha at the beginning of Siman 128 quotes from the Sefer Charedim that there is a mitzva on the tzibur to be blessed by the kohanim. The Haflaah in Kesubos 24b uses this Charedim to explain why it is prohibited for a non-Kohen to go up to duchen, He says that if a Yisrael goes up to duchess he is being mevatel his mitzva of receiving the beracha. See also the Minchas Chinuch 378 who quotes this Charedim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 25 11:05:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:05:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > explanation of the Rambam. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not > the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a > safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important . R. Avraham pointed out that problem of the authority of the rabbis is a basic problem and not just a difficulty with a Rambam and Ramban. The better the source of their authority the more it looks like a de-oraisa. The more one goes away from a de-oraisa the weaker their authority. His major answer is that every time there is a dichotomy the only way out is to find a third middle path. In general this replaces a binary decision by a continuum path. His standard example is the definition of bald. Someone who has one hair is obviously bald. It is also obvious that adding one hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. The conclusion by induction is that every one is bald. The answer to the riddle that the dichotomy of bald not-bald is not correct. Adding one more hair makes someone less bald. It is a continuum and not a binary. R Avraham (RMA) brought the Nesivos that also (or more correctly first) states that there are two types of violating a derabbanan. One is to rebel against the concept of derabbanan and that is lo tasur according to the Rambam (he also hinted that in the next shiur the Ramban will agree with the Rambam). OTOH if one violates the rabbanan rule "le-teavon" then it is a strictly rabbinical rule. Hence, Nesivot concludes that if one one violates a rabbanan "be-shogeg" one does not need kaparah. In essence he has done nothing wrong. The lo-tasur is only for rebellion and he has not rebelled. Note that practically there can't be rebellion and safek. In modern terms the netivot says that all rabbanan decrees are gavra and not cheftza. Eating meat and milk (cooked together) the mixture is prohibited. Eating chicken and milk cooked together there is nothing wrong with the mixture. It is rebelling against the chachamim to eat it on purpose (lo tasur) or rabbinic if eaten le-teavon. RMA pointed out that this again comes back to the problem of why to listen to the rabbis Note that the Rogachover holds that every mitzvat aseh is only gavra and not cheftza A second explanation was from the Rogatchover: The prohibition from the Torah only demands that we accept the authority of the rabbis. If someone accepts that the rabbis can make decrees but decides that nevertheless he can't/won't listen then there is no Torah prohibition. This leaves open the question how is it possible that one can accept the authority of the rabbis but still disagree with them. It seems to bring back the original question of what good is their authority if one need not listen, To explain this RMA brought a Tzlach. The Nodah BeYehuda states that sevara yields a de-oraisa only if their is a connecting pasuk. Thus killing someone to save oneself is a deoraisa based on sevara (everyones blood is equal). However when sevara creates a new category then it is only derabbanan. The classic example is berachot - eating without a bracha is LIKE stealing. So the rabbis based on this sevara required berachot. However, it is only a derabbanan since one is not actually stealing. (answers a question of the Pnei Yehoshua). Similarly for something to be a Torah law there has to be both a commandment and a content. In order for something to be a de-oraisa it needs BOTH a source and content. So violating shabbat is one prohibition even though there are many pesukim since the content is the same. OTOH "lav she-be-chlalot" has only one pasuk but many contents and so also there is no punishment. According to Rambam anything no explicit in the Torah has no punishment when learned from derashot. So the prohibition of "Lo Tasur" gives a generalization that there is a commandment to listen to the rabbis. The rabbis applied to this to various cases but this is no longer explicit in the pasuk and so no longer a de-oraisa. This is different than "lifne iver" where giving bad advice is an example of the pasuk and so from the Torah. In summary there are 3 types of derashot 1) examples not explicit in the pasuk - clasical example is neder. The Torah says one can't violate one's neder. Hoever the individual person decides the specific application 2) Asmachta (some meforshim) - just a help to memory. Ritva argues that some asmachtot are really the intention of the pasuk. However since it is only hinted it is a rabbanan and not a deoraisa i.e. there is content but no commandment. 3) Things learned indirectly from the pasuk there is a sevara (content) but no commandment. Finally RMA argues that finding a third/middle path is the only way out and so Ramban has to agree with Rambam. The arguments are more misunderstandings and semantics. Another example is Avelut. Rambam states explicitly that ivisiting the avel or making the kallah happy rabbinic. He the quotes the pasuk of "ve-ahavta le-reacha komecha" . This eems to be self-contradictory. The answer is the same as for "Lo Tasur". There is content but no explicit commandment and so it is rabbinic even though hinted in the pasuk. Someone who "loves" (not romantic) the Kallah but doesnt make her happy fulfills the Torah obligation but not the rabbinic one. Someone who makes her happy but doent "love" her fulfils the rabbinic command but not the Torah obligation. RMA then hinted to a wider application to general philosophical questions where one has observations and generalizations. How is it possible to generate a physical law (eg Maxwell's equations) when all we have are a finite number of observations. In other words are mathematical descriptions of nature inherent in nature or man-made. De-raisa is like observations we only have what is explicit. Derabbanan are generalizations. In both cases we need to find a middle/continuum path Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 08:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev >> for a berakhah? > Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? > In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for > women according to the BeHaG? In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: <576FFEA2.1070206@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 11:51 AM, elazar teitz wrote: > In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf > person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of > noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer > Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the > blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. Good distinction. Even awareness is presumably not necessary, since we bring babies to be blessed. But is this distinction really relevant to the question of whether to make a bracha? Where do we see that a bracha depends on a chiyuv to hear rather than merely to be present? Further question: is a bracha said on attending hakhel? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:13:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:13:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: <<< According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? >>> As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the latter than the former. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:34:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and then continues on the cruise. We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many days -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:32:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:32:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57709038.8010307@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:34 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for > someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every > day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a > difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and > then continues on the cruise. > > We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips > on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of > the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many > days How much more so. If one says it (without shem umalchus) every morning of the journey, even at a hotel where one might be staying for a day or two to rest, how much more so must one say it (again without shem umalchus) every morning if one is actually travelling at that very moment. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:30:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:30:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57708FB9.2050601@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:13 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be > blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: >> According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? > As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one > does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. > Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the > recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. > How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the > kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Our case is different, because once the cohen has answered the call and gone up to the duchan he can't change his mind. He's now obligated to bless. And if he hasn't done it yet that day then he has to do it anyway. > Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha > only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel > and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely > being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is > indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the > latter than the former. But we *do* have an obligation to say a bracha, which we are yotzei by listening to the baal tokeia's or baal korei's; if he has already been yotzei himself then he does *not* say the bracha again, and one of the listeners says it for everyone. Here, however, we are not yotzei with the cohanim's bracha, since it doesn't apply to us; we are not sanctified with Aharon's kedusha, and we were not commanded to bless but (according to this opinion) to be blessed. So if we're not yotzei their bracha why don't we say our own (or have the chazan say it for us)? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 02:10:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:10:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: In my original post I was too short. Therefore I will expand a little about tefillat haderech and my question 1) Rashi holds that tefillat haderech (THD) is requesting permission from Hashem and so can only be said within the first parsah. Bahag holds that THD is asking for protection and so can be said anytime up to a parsah before the end of the trip. Rosh and SA pasken like Behag. Rambam doesn't mention THD and meforshim try and explain why 2) Ashkenazim measure parsah as a distance (about 4km) even when using a car or plane. ROY translated parsah to a time of 72 minutes. 3) Kolbo says that one says THD only once a day even if one made a stop during the day (quoted in SA). Hence, MB says that if one is touring and stops every night in a hotel one says THD every morning with a bracha. Yalkut Yosef says that if one travels 40 minutes going to work and 40 minutes back they don't combine and one says THS without a bracha 4) Radvaz talks about an extended trip and says that even if one is not stopping in a "yishuv" and if if one is travelling all night he says THD every day but a bracha only on the first day. Pri Chadash disagrees says that one says THD only on the first day even if it is an extended trip MB says that if one makes a short stop then one should say THD the next morning without a bracha 5) As an aside RSZA paskens that one does not say THD traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as there are cities all along the way. Yalkut Yosef disagrees. RSZA also says that on a plane one should say THD shortly after the plane leaves the ground My question concerned travelling on a boat either several day journey without stops across the Atlantic or else a cruise with many stops in ports. According to the Pri Chadash one certainly doesn't say THD after the first day. However, even according to the Radvaz one might argue that there is no need to say THD after the first day since one always stays on the boat day and night and it is different than a caravan. Of course one can always say THD without a bracha but the question is whether one needs to. I have no surveys but in my limited experience people do not say THD every day on a cruise even without a bracha -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 06:17:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei halachot in monetary matters Message-ID: A new web site exists collecting piskei halachot in financial matters especially from eretz chemda courts in Israel currently 336 rulings with a search engine psakim.org -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 07:39:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:39:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Buying Sliced Watermelon Message-ID: <1467038393622.33144@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. I am preparing a picnic. Can I buy sliced watermelon from the supermarket? A. The Shach (YD 96:3) cites a concern that a knife often contains a fatty residue even after it has been washed or wiped with a rag. Therefore, if a non-kosher knife was used to cut kosher food, some of the residue on the knife would transfer to the food. Rama (96:1, 4) writes that with regards to fruit, we can assume that the manufacturer or processor has dedicated utensils. Even if the knife is not dedicated to cutting fruit, however, if large quantities of fruit are being cut or sliced, we can assume that whatever non-kosher residue was on the knife was removed when cutting the first few fruit, which are batel (nullified) in the majority of other fruit. One may, therefore, purchase cut watermelon in a supermarket or in a fruit store. The market would likely have dedicated utensils and in any event it is preparing large quantities of fruit. In a non-kosher restaurant or catered event, however, the fruit would not be permitted because the knives very likely are not dedicated and food preparation switches from one product to the next. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 13:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:55:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim Message-ID: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R' Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in "Ve ha-ish Moshe Anav m'od" from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Thanks, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 19:28:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim In-Reply-To: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> References: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> Message-ID: <5771E0DF.8050101@sero.name> On 06/27/2016 04:55 PM, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R? > Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. > > In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in ?Ve > ha-ish Moshe Anav m?od? from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Here you go: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19165&pgnum=207 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 28 03:03:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:03:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is dirt clean? Message-ID: If a Jew wants to eat bread, halacha requires a certain form of hand-washing, but that has nothing to do with this thread. There are also certain situations where halacha recognizes a certain *spiritual* uncleanliness, and requires a certain hand-washing to remedy it. Most (all?) of these situations are listed in S"A O"C 4:18, and include things like getting up from bed, exiting a bathroom, removing one's shoes, and others. It is noteworthy that this se'if begins with the words "These things require washing with water", as if to suggest that washing with other things would not be effective. Indeed, the Mishne Brurah #39 comments on the word "with water": > However, for tefilah - and certainly for learning Torah - > a mere cleaning is enough for any of these cases, as > noted below in se'if 22, in the case of one who gets up > from bed. And this is certainly [acceptable] if there is > no [water available]. However, removing the Ruach Raah > requires specifically water. ... But this thread isn't about those situations either. I am mentioning it only in order to clearly establish that there is yet another category of situations, namely the ones that the MB pointed to as being in Se'if 22. The Mechaber wrote there (S"A O"C 4:22): > If one has no water, he should wipe his hands on a > pebble or dirt or anything that cleans, and say the > bracha 'Al Nekiyus Yadayim'. This [procedure] is > effective for tefilah, but not to remove the ruach > raah which is on [the hands]. The Mechaber's phrase "anything that cleans", and his wording for the bracha in such cases, not to mention his comment about ruach raah at the end -- All these things make it abundantly clear that we are talking about *physical* cleanliness, as opposed to other kinds of cleanliness. And the Mechaber writes similarly in O"C 92:4, that prior to Tefilah, > One must wash his hands with water if he has some, and > if he doesn't have any [the Mechaber explains how far > one must go to obtain water]. But if he is worried that > he will pass the time limit for Tefilah, then he should > clean his hands with a pebble or dirt or anything that > cleans. My question is simple: Why is dirt in the category of "things which clean"? It seems to me that if I would rub my hands with dirt they would (almost always) be even dirtier afterwards than before. The only answer I can think of is that halacha considers dirt to be clean. Is it possible that the *only* uncleanliness that prohibits tefila are the things listed in OC 4:21 - touching covered parts of one's body, etc. (and perhaps other specific listings elsewhere) Here's a practical situation. Suppose someone is at work, and it is close to Mincha time. So he goes to the bathroom, exits, and does the best washing you can imagine, with whatever chumros you like. Then he realizes he has a bit more time until mincha, so he decides to go back to work, but with constant attention to being very careful not to scratch his head, or touch under his shirt, or any of the things that would require him to wash again before mincha. But his job is a butcher, and he will get his hands bloody. Or he is a painter or printer, and he'll get paint or ink on his hands. Or he is a farmer or construction worker, and he'll get actual earth on his hands. And now it is time for mincha. Are his hands halachically clean or dirty? If you tell me that they are dirty, how does it help to wipe his hands in the dirt? I have more questions on this topic, but I hope this will get the ball rolling. Thank you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:32:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rishon vs Acharon and other kelalei pesak Message-ID: <20160629193257.GA12798@aishdas.org> There are some interesting se'ifim toward the end of AhS YD 242 that touch on a number of our perennial topics. Se'ifin 58-62 discuss the din of whether a rav can pasqen on something that someone else already pasqened on, and if so, is a sho'el allowed to ask the second rav the self-same question. In 59 he opines (nir'eh LAD) that the Raavad, Ramban, Rashba, Rosh and Ran (AZ 7) all say the issue is not the kavod of the first talmid chakham, but because once he prohibits, chal alei chatichah de'isura [CACD]. Therefore, if the first TC made an error in a zil qeri bei rav matter, it's like someone who avoids a piece of shuman thinking it's cheilev, and there is no CACD. However, ther 2nd TC *may* say "I think it's allowed, but I will not permit something R' XYZ already prohibited." If a talmid chakham was matir and no one acted on it, another TC can be machmir. But if it was acted upon, he can't. I do not see an explanation why. Later we learn that a TC of an obviously higher caliber, or a moreh de'asra in his own town, can indeed overrule an earlier TC's ruling. Another interesting topic is 35 -- if acharonim disagree with a rishon whose opinion was available in their day, we follow the acharonim. If the rishon was not (eg Me'iri), we say that perhaps the acharonim would have ruledd differently had they seen it. But you cznnot rule against a ga'on. Yeish omerim you never hold like acharonim against rishonim, but yesh lehisyasheiv bazeh. However, if the rishon find one position compelling (yakhol lehachira) he may pasqen as he sees (except against geonim). 36: Just as it is assur to permit the prohibited, so too it is assur to prohibit the permitted. Even if there is no hefseid, or the item is owned by a non-Jew. However, safeiq and being chosheish for the opinoin of many rishonim is sufficient motive . According to the Shakh this is because "shelo ya'asu agudos agudos." In general the AhS refers to the Shakh's qunetrus on kelalei hapesaq a lot. Even though on a couple of things he holds like the Rama over the Shakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:46:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yanik Message-ID: <20160629194624.GA12037@aishdas.org> AhS YD 244 is about vehadarta penei zaqein -- both someone chronologically old (as long as he is not a rasha or an am ha'aretz who therefore ends up non-observant by ignorance), and a talmid chakham. In se'if 3 he says that a zaqein for the sake of this mitzvah would even include a TC who is a yaniq. Not a qatan. So what's a yaniq? Someone 17 or younger. Are there any mitzvos for which 17 yrs old is a significant age? The ony reference I could dream up is R' Elazar ben Azaria, who was 17, was supposed to be getting kavod (being nasi), and turned gray (keben shiv'im shanah) overnight. Problem is, he was 18 according to the Bavli; it's the Yerushalmi who has him becoming nasi at 16, and saying this quote at 17. And of cvourse the bigger problem is that there is no reason to turn the age REbA happened to be into a cutoff line. Can anyone think of something? 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 Thu Jun 30 02:10:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:10:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] meanings Message-ID: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or should you pick one? 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 Thu Jun 30 03:51:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:51:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma > before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities > with different meanings. (By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or > should you pick one? Another example in Hallel: ze hayom `asa Hashem, nagila venismha bo (is "bo" hayom or Hashem? Most translations seem to go for "hayom", but "veyyismehu becha Yisrael" in the kedushat hayom of 18 for regalim fits with "bo" meaning Hashem) My humble opinion: for pesukim, if there are two possibilities it's not by chance, and mikra lo yotze mipeshuto -- including all its peshatim. For tefilla, I'm not so sure, but I think you should probably pick one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:13:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:10:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma : before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities : with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off : or should you pick one? As per my answer to you at this week's wonderful Audio Roundup , I believe you *should* switch off. Poets make a point of layering on multiple meanings when they wish to convey a picture using al of them. I believe the point of ambiguity in tefillah is just so that you can emphasize different shades of meaning depending on what you want to way this particular time. (I accept tips for plugging a member's web site via Paypal. Contact me off-list. No, seriously, the biggest problem with RJR's Audio Roundup over on TM is that he tempts you with too many good shiurim for just one week of listening time.) There is a basic grammatical problem, two nouns, both the object of the sentence, with nothing indicating which is the primary object, which the secondary, nor anything connecting them into a single phrase that could be one object. Thanks to previous Avodah discussions, I have a list of ways to read "umasbia lekhol chai ratzon": - Pashut peshat [check your typical siddur translation] would be as though the pasuq read "umasbia' ritzon kol chai" -- leaving every desire satisfied. (Or maybe "umasbia lekhol chai es tetzono".) RYGB disliked this peshat because it's experimentally false. Many people die with unfulfilled desires. - Rav Schwab says that everyone is dependent on "yennem's" liking him for his parnassa.... Hashem provides this needed "ratzon". (RGD) RMPoppers suggests [on Mesorah] that "ratzon" was the very quality that HQBH is bequeathing, IIRC, something akin to granting "chein". - [T]he Malbim's pshat - Ratzon Hashem. (RYGB) [W]ould would work better if the pasuq read "... umasbia' lechol chei beratzon" .(me) - RAYK points out that without ratzon, goals and purposes for a person to persue, life is empty. So he too says that Hashem bestows ratzon -- but means it in the sense of having desire, not being desired/desirable. Hashem does us a tovah by giving us retzonos to pursue. Someone else noted the parallel in pereq 104:27-28 as an argument for what I called "pashut peshat": > Kulam alecha yesaberun / Eynai kol alecha yesabeiru > Lases ochlam b'ito / V'atah nosein lahem achlam b'ito > Titein lahem yilkotun. > Tiftach yadcha / Poseach es yadech > yisbe'un tov. / U'masbiya l'kol chay ratzon. > The whole string of preceding psukim in 104 refer to G-d's ability to > sustain the world in a very real and material way, not abstractions like > bestowing "razton". But I think that David haMelekh created the obscure phrasing because the real answer is "(E) All of the above". I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel beratzon..." works. When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase vehasheiv: - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, - ve'ishei Yisrael. Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to restore the BHMQ bfirst? Or do we pun on "ishei Yisrael" pretending it means "anshei Yisrael" but in a unique conjugation? But the question is how to find meaning in a pre-existing text under a new circumstance. Not multiuple layers of original intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:44:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:44:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9CWhenever_you_find_yourself_on_the_sid?= =?utf-8?q?e_of_the_majority=2C_it_is_time_to_reform_=28or_pause_and_refle?= =?utf-8?b?Y3QpLuKAnSAg4oCVIE1hcmsgVHdhaW4=?= Message-ID: We all know the minority report by Joshua and Caleb showers its praises on the land and counsels b?nai Yisroel to go up to it. The ten other ?spies? give a very negative report against the land and can see only giants, fortified cities and difficulties they feel are insurmountable. These ten men of small stature conclude their report with the following: ?And there we saw the giants (nephilim), the sons of the giant (Anak), from among the giants; And we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes and so we were in their sight. (Bamidbar 13:33). The Midrash states that at these words, God said: ?I have no objection to your saying, ?We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes,? but it is inappropriate if you say, ?and so were were in their sight.? How do you know how you appeared to them? How do you know if you did not appear to them to be angels?? (Midrash Bamidar Rabbah, XVL, II). This is a profound psychological insight. How many times we feel insignificant and think everyone else looks at us the same. Just because you feel inferior doesn?t mean you are. That?s the meaning of ?You?re your own worst enemy." Shabbat shalom. ri From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 12:50:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <577577ED.2090001@sero.name> On 06/30/2016 02:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. > Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to > say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) > > In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel > beratzon..." works. > > When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in > a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the > period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase > vehasheiv: > - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, > - ve'ishei Yisrael. > Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept > the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to > restore the BHMQ bfirst? I don't see the problem, or the "repurposing". The phrase means exactly what it always meant. The only change the bracha needed to adapt it to the new reality was the addition of a new request, to restore the avodah, before the request to accept our korbanos and tefillos. Once the new request is fulfilled, the next one won't be a problem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 06:57:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 09:57:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Navigating Kitchen Appliance Technology Message-ID: <20160401135835.593F217FAB8@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers. See the above URL for more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 07:39:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> <56FD3F55.5070601@sero.name> Message-ID: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. -- 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 Fri Apr 1 10:44:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:44:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401174415.GA2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:28:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I think the real difference between the two cases is how deeply one must : dig to see the wires and the switches: In the floor mat all you'd need, I : guess, is to cut through a centimeter or two of rubber to see the wires, : while the motion detector would need a microscope and an engineering degree : just to understand what you're looking at. But even with the mat, no one : can actually see the electricity move simply as a result of standing on it. I think those two are different in kind. In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Let's say there was an unlit room at the end of a long hall, so there was no way to light it without chilul Shabbos. Would it be mutar to write in such a room? Or is writing assur, regardless of the situation? If a bug is born of eggs that are large enough to be visible, but happen to be hidden within uncut meat, is the maggot kosher? In the motion detector (or the fitbit), the change is not detectible by an unaided human, regardless of the situation. People cannot see the microscopic. (And yes, I realize that claim is true by definition of the word "microscopic"). The change is outside the realm of unaided human senses in principle, not in situation. If one looks through water through a microscope and finds water bears and other micrscopic bugs in it, does that water become treif? Is all tap water or distilled water in bottles that were open too long treif because one in theory would find such things in most water? (For a moment there I thought about mayim she-lanu, but then realized this would be a much more restrictive issur than that.) : There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, : but in my experience this idea is very new. Not even ten years old perhaps. Rav Dovid Lifshitz spoke about halakhah in general ignoring the microscopic some time between Sep 1984 and Jun 1986. The permissability of killing bugs that have no piryah verivyah on Shabbos (or of eating them) is miSinai. Or at least, as old as some pre-Chazal rav pasqened the deOraisa that way, since Chazal take it for granted. The real motive for saying halakhah only applies to the sensible is to find a new explanation for an old heter to avoid saying a din deOraisa is in error, even though the old explanation (abiogensis of these insects) was shown to be empirically false. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 10:57:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> References: <02f901d18bdc$9c3d63f0$d4b82bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160401175728.GC2751@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 02:06:19AM -0400, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote: : And here's the link to the source sheet: : http://cdn.yutorah.org/materials/Source Sheet-510279.pdf RMT's discussion is of ex rays, and really focuses on whether the developing is koseiv. (Also, mesayeia, how often is it really needed, etc...) If anything, I would read him as assuming that the invisiable change to the film is mutar. :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 11:18:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:18:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160401181840.GD2751@aishdas.org> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:01PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : Seems similar to an automatic watch, except for there being post-Shabbos : utility to the recorded unintentional-exercise-on-Shabbos data. Also, the automatic watch, becoause it is never allowed to run down, is never actually broken to need repairs. What melakhah would be involved, even if the winding were observable? (And I think in principle it is... one can see the spring and how tight it is.) :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 1 15:54:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:54:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: I wrote: > ... But even with the mat, no one can actually see the electricity > move simply as a result of standing on it. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think those two are different in kind. > > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible hypothetically, albeit not situationally? If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I missing something here? Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." I will concede that he clearly has some wiggle room there, and he doesn't specify why he is unsure, but I never thought that the invisibility of the electrons was an issue, since their power is so evident. Could it be that the tide has turned, and more poskim are looking at the electrons? I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 2 21:33:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 00:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> From: Akiva Miller via Avodah >> There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, but in my experience this idea is very new. .... Let's say that there is a posek who rules leniently on these devices, and he bases his ruling on this principle that tiny things can be ignored. What precedent is there? What lenient rulings existed 25 or 50 years ago, based on that same principle? Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice and didn't mean to kill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:34:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:34:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: This is many ways similar to the use of electronic water meters on shabbos. The meter has no external display that changes and all it does on Shabbos is record how much water you are using. The Charedi poskim in israel have all assumed that it is absolutely forbidden. You can see the kol korehs here: http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2012/09/using-electronic-water-meters-on-shabbos.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 01:41:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I realise that I was a bit terse in my original question so I would like to expand on the halachic questions. After talking to 2 expert sofrim the story is as follows. There are 2 halachic problems with black on white (traditional retzuos): 1. Since the black is just painted on, the paint peels off leaving a part (even small) of the retzua that is not black. The MB is machmir that this will pasul the retzua 2. The KSA has a chumra that the sides of the retzuos should be black as well. The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the above 2 issues. 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't peel off or crack, it stays black 2. The sides are black as well. The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the gedolim today use black on black retzuos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 07:38:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 10:38:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: <20160331143903.GA4299@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57012B00.10604@sero.name> Another advantage of black-on-black: Al pi din only the loop that holds the bayis to your arm or head has to be top-side-out. The rest of the retzuah that goes around your arm or that hangs down past the kesher can face any way. But if you have the white showing, inevitably someone will come up to you tell you to turn it around or just turn it around themselves. With black-on-black this won't happen. -- 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 Sun Apr 3 13:20:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 22:20:26 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> References: <155d2f.289d63a1.4431f725@aol.com> Message-ID: <57017B0A.4040206@zahav.net.il> This could be different because even if you walk on grass there is no guarantee that you're going to kill anything. Whereas in today's digital world, you walk in various cities, you're going to activate some circuits somewhere. Ben On 4/3/2016 6:33 AM, via Avodah wrote: > I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always > been mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you > might be stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice > and didn't mean to kill. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 13:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 21:02:27 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> References: <56FE8832.3090506@sero.name> Message-ID: Date: Fri 1 Apr 2016 10:39:46 EDT From: Zev Sero > Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim? > Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side? > If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros. Oros Eilim Me'adamim are explained by the Yerushalmi to mean rams hit - whilst living - so as to produce bruising, which subsequently produced the 'red' skins, on being flayed.Rashi (ad loc.) appears to concede with that explanation.Lulei d'midtofino, I would suggest the redness was due to a tannery process, much as the old Yemenite Sifrei Torah were reddish [brown].(Note: Me'adamim is most probably a brownish red, as in Poroh Adumoh.) Dovid Rubin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 3 10:08:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2016 13:08:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar Message-ID: <20160403170927.74F6617FAFA@nexus.stevens.edu> Just like most other Bar Mitzvah bochurim, my son Mordechai Zev started donning his Tefillin a while before his actual Bar Mitzvah this past Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheini, as part of his preparations. Yet, unlike most others who start donning Tefillin two or three months, or more commonly, one month prior to the actual 13th birthday, my son started wearing Tefillin 31 days before his Bar Mitzvah, an opinion not explicitly found in any early halachic codex. But to understand why, some background about Double Adars is in order... To understand why, read the article "Insights Into Halacha: 31 Days Before the Bar Mitzvah: A Primer on Mitzvah Observance in a Double Adar". For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Insights Into Halacha is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos! Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 03:17:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:17:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy Message-ID: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> By Dr Lawrence Fishman or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: In many academic circles, previous to the excavation of Khirbet Qeiyafa and its publication, scholars denied the entire notion of a centralized Jewish polity in the late 11th-early 9th centuries BCE. Khirbet Qeiyafa as well as some of the discoveries in ancient Jerusalem have shown that this view should be rejected.... Because of the [Bible's] presentation of [the history of this period] in quasi-mythic terms, it cannot be taken literally by historians. Yet properly evaluated it can and should contribute in broad outlines to the construction of a historical picture of our period.... The early kings of Israel rose to political power beginning with a limited territorial base later supplemented by military conquest. Saul's territory was that of the tribe of Benjamin. His son, Ishbaal (this name appears on an inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa), who ruled for a very brief period..., also claimed to rule over Ephraim, Gilead, the Jezreel [Valley], and Asher. David first ruled in the territory of Judah. His capital was in Hebron in the Judean Hills for seven years until he moved it to Jerusalem. The Bible attests to his beginning as a chieftain and traces the evolution and machinations that led to his kingship.... As David gained power and expanded from his Judean base, he ruled parts of what would later be considered Israel.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 04:13:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:13:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Evidence of the United Monarchy In-Reply-To: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> References: <20160405101754.GA15126@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57039DBE.4010907@starways.net> Aside from his name being Schiffman, and not Fishman, I have to disagree with his identifications. The Iron II remains he's talking about are not from the United Monarchy. Rather, they are from the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement. And in fact, they *match* the Assyrian occupation and Samaritan settlement, but do not in any way match the United Monarchy, which is why he had to give the caveat that: /The elimination of these more extreme, minimalist views of the period of the United Monarchy does not give us an excuse to adopt a simplistic or fundamentalist reading of the biblical historical accounts and the archaeological evidence. Rather, it calls upon us to ask how, when taken together, the age-old historical traditions of the Jewish people can be melded with archaeological evidence from the Land of Israel and evidence from surrounding cultures in the ancient Near East. Our challenge, therefore, is not to ask whether or not biblical accounts and archaeological evidence are true or not, but rather how, when taken together, the evidence available to us can allow us to reconstruct a sense of what the society was like that produced the biblical traditions that we have received.// / This is a roundabout way of saying that the remains don't match the biblical narrative, but we can, if we try really hard, kinda see how the remains were later enlarged into the biblical fantasy. He also says: /In the monarchic period a uniformity of architectural forms throughout Judah/Israel has been discovered... Architecturally the public city gates of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor are strikingly similar: the walls are very thick and feature casemates where people lived or that were used for storage... The uniformity of the features of the great public buildings in these cities suggests a royal administration./ Substituting Iron II for the incorrect "monarchic period", this is understandable, since the uniform architecture was the result of local governors from the same Assyrian empire. But of course, the architecture of Solomon was on a scale far above that of the Iron II buildings. Interestingly enough, the cities where these uniform city gates were found are, each of them, in the regional capitols of areas conquered by Assyria. He leaves off Lachish, which has the same gates, and which was the Assyrian capitol of their province of Judea in the time between their conquest of all Judea other than Jerusalem and their withdrawal after they were struck down before the gates of Jerusalem. Lisa On 4/5/2016 1:17 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > By Dr Lawrence Fishman > > or . Teaser, taken fom MosaicMagazine.com: > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 5 14:57:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (D Rubin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 22:57:10 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Black on black tefillin retzuos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:41:21 +0300 From: Marty Bluke via Avodah ... > The black on black retzuos dress these 2 halachic issues. The way they are > made is that the whole retzua is soaked in black paint/dye for a long time > and the dye is absorbed deeply into the leather. Then optionally an > additional coat of glossy black is applied to 1 side.This addresses the > above 2 issues. > 1. Since the retzua is soaked in dye and it is deeply absorbed it doesn't > peel off or crack, it stays black > 2. The sides are black as well. > The only objection that I heard was this is a chidush, this is not the > traditional way of making retzuos and if this was a good idea why didn't > the gedolim of yesteryear come up with it. Additionally, none of the > gedolim today use black on black retzuos This is not so simple. It might be argued that the 'optional' addition of a glossy side is not so optional. Rashi says, the outside of the retsuos need to be the 'noy' [beauty]. In the old manner of painting - and not soaking - the retsuos, this was quite simple. The painted side represented the noy. Soaking the skins does not give a pleasant finished article. Thus, i would argue, the addition of a glossy side is imperative. A point that was missed is the opinion of the Arizal, that the retsuos of shel rosh should be black on both sides. (However, from previous argument it would appear that might entail a nice finish on both sides.) The objection that this new process is a chiddush is somewhat faulty. I possess retsuos of over 200 years. It is clear that the original method of manufacture was very different 200 years ago. The entire skin was not treated. Rather, strips were cut off and then painted. This enabled the sides to be painted as well. Thus, the entire way retsuos are manufactured nowadays represents a departure from tradition. The reason, perhaps, why gedolim may be reluctant on taking on this chumrah, is that it may be misconstrued as halacha. Dovid Rubin Your soul is a part of God, part of His Infinite Essence. You are beyond limit, estimation or assessment. Ever since creation, the world has been waiting for you. Since your soul realised itself, it has been waiting for its time to perform its unique tasks of improvement. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 06:27:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:27:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakheh ess shinnav Message-ID: <57050EC8.1010702@gmail.com> I got a laugh from Larry's responses: >From http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2016/04/05/weekly-digest-news-and-essays-in-and-out-of-orthodoxy-week-of-parshas-tazria-5776/ ...Dr. Steven Bayme, who has emerged recently as the primary spokesman for PORAT...validates Biblical Criticism even when it negates parts of the Torah.... Snippet: ''Did Moses actually write that Abraham pursued his foes until 'Dan' in order to rescue Lot (Gen. 14:14), or was the place name a later editorial insert to indicate what by then had become a well-known locale? Were there two ?Yairs? who each happened to have conquered 30 villages in the Bashan 200 years apart (Deut. 3:14; Judg. 10:3-4) or was this but one incident occurring later but inserted retrospectively into the Book of Numbers as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Bashan?'' =================== larry rothenberg April 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm Steve Bayme, 3000 years from now ? ''Were there really two presidents named Bush, a father and son, who both went to war with an Iraqi dictator named Saddam Hussein? or was this but one incident occurring later but added retrospectively into American history textbooks as a subsequent epilogue of the war with Iraq?'' ==================== Naftali April 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm In the offending ''snippet'' all Dr Bayme does is raise questions. Is the mere asking of questions now considered unOrthodox? in which case, what does an Orthodox Seder look like? -------------- larry April 5, 2016 at 3:46 pm The answer depends on whether you are a chacham or a rasha. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:14:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chayav Livsumei In-Reply-To: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> References: <429FC74B-5F7C-4024-BF47-AB3D0FE49D16@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160406191405.GB5241@aishdas.org> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:52:29AM +1100, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : In the words of Mori V'Rabbi Rav Schachter in Torah Web on "Torah : and Nevuah" I found it at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rsch_tzav.html : In his commentary to the mishnayos (end of Sanhedrin), Rambam lists what : he considers are the thirteen principles of our faith. We believe in : prophecy. It is possible for G-d to communicate with man. We also believe : that the prophecy of Moshe Rabbeinu was on a higher level than that of : any of the other prophets. What does this mean? Is Rambam grading the : prophets? If Moshe Rabbeinu gets an A+, what does Micha get? And what : grade does Chavakuk deserve? : : No, this is not a matter of grading Moshe's prophecy. What Rambam means to : say is that the only prophet who was ever given mitzvos (with a binding : force for all future generations) was Moshe Rabbeinu. His was the only : prophecy that was on the level of Torah. I didn't get this paragraph. Because: 1- As it says further down: : Moshe Rabbeinu was the only prophet who was given what we technically : refer to as "mitzvos", commandments which are binding throughout all : the future generations, because they constitute the description of G-d's : essence, which is not subject to change. None of the prophets were ever : shown "the image of God", i.e., were never given "mitzvos". They were : only given a "hora'as sha'ah", of a temporary nature only... Well, if Moshe alone was shown the tzelem E-lokim (which is necessary to receive mitzvos), isn't that grading MRAH's above Micha or Chavaquq, who did not? Now if you're going to say that's the content of the nevu'ah, not the quality of navi (pe'ula, not gavra), the pasuq itself says, "Lo qam navi od beYisrael keMosheh, asher yeda'o H' Panim el panim." (Devarim 34:10) 2- The Rambam himself says that Moshe's nevu'ah was qualitatively unique. In the 7th ikar, the Rambam describes the "peh el peh" (Bamidbar 12:8) nevu'ah of Moshe as being unique in 4 ways: a- no intermediary -- nevu'ah direct from HQBH b- he didn't need to be asleep or in a trance c- it didn't cause him to weaken and shudder (c.f. Daniel 8:8-9, 16) d- Moshe could choose when he got nevu'ah; other nevi'im received when and if Hashem chose. In the Moreh 2:35, we find: ... For I must tell you that whatever I say here of prophecy refers exclusively to the form of the prophecy of all prophets before and after Moses. But as to the prophecy of Moses I will not discuss it in this work with one single word, whether directly or indirectly, because, in my opinion, the term prophet is applied to Moses and other men homonymously. A similar distinction, I think, must be made between the miracles wrought by Moses and those wrought by other prophets, for his signs are not of the same class as the miracles of other prophets... The word "nev'uah" is only used as a homonym -- it has a different meaning when used WRT Moshe than when we call anyone else a navi / nev'uah. This goes beyond grading Moshe an A+ and some other navi an A or less. That would be saying they are at different gradations on the same scale. What Moshe did wasn't nevu'ah as all in the same sense of the word. It was a different type of perception. See also Moreh 2:45, where he lists 11 gradations of nevu'ah -- all of which in the usual sense of the word. (Moshe's being to different to even be listed as a 12th.) The Rambam was far from afraid of ranking prophecy, if not prophets. But he does make a distinction between Moshe and the other nevi'im beyond who received mitzvos and who not. As I said, I don't think that's RHS's intent either, as can bee seen in the second snippet I left in this post. I just don't know what his intent is. 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 Wed Apr 6 13:26:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:26:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:28:26AM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : http://shuihaber.com/2016/03/31/the-arba-parshiyos/ ... : Rav Sperber explains that on the 5th Shabbos, they would then go back : to where they had left off. This seems to be the literal meaning of the : mishna that says: "on the fifth Shabbos, we resume reading like usual." As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also possible. The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a : 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year : cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the : Community in Eretz Yisroel. Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from EY than among Sepharadim. The question is when did Ashkenaz itself switch. It must have been centuries before the time in discussion in any case. Machzor Vitri (R' Simchah miVitrie -- a talmid of Rashi and the Ri's grandfather) discusss leiniing Bereishis on the 2nd day of Sheini Atzeres, the terms for Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis, and even the reshus for each. But it would be ironic if Ashkenaz became the bastion of Babylonian lening, spreading it to EY. I guess it's true: there is no one so vehement as the newly converted. : Lastly, there is an old minhag to say Yotzros and Krovos during the : Shabbos morning Tefilla... : This minhag became popular amongst the Chassidim... But I think most loyally maintained bvy Yekkes, due to the aforementioned ancient Ashkenazi attitude toward piut in general. : The Rema comments that the R'i, Rashba and the Tur all hold that there : is no issue with interrupting your regular tefilla for this, but if you : do not say the Yotzros it is still fine... (Note: change fn 10 to "OC 68:1".) The Rama takes it for granted that the minyan is saying them, "vekhein nohagin bekhol hameqomos le'amram". So even though he hold "vehameiqil ve'eino omeram lo hifsid" -- as long as you're with the tzibbur and not even learning during the piyut -- I am not sure he is actually advocating for skipping it. Ad RSH put it "it is still fine". I just wanted to point out that he would NOT permit what I myself do -- use the time to learn. "Ein le'adam lifrosh atzmo meihatzibur". He repeated this in 90:10, where he advocates saying the piyutim with the tzibbur. "Velo yifrosh min hatzibur afilu la'asoq bedivrei Torah". : The Minhag of the Chasam Sofer was not to recite the piyutim during : davening, rather he would sing them during the Shabbos or YomTov : seudah. The Mesora is that the Chasam Sofer learnt this from his rebbe : the Baal Hafla'ah who learnt it form the Mezritcher Maggid who learnt : it from the Baal Shem Tov... Whatever happened to the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah"? 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 Apr 6 13:58:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160406205847.GE5241@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:54:06PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger responded: : > I think those two are different in kind. : : > In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use : > the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) : > change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it. : : Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible : hypothetically, albeit not situationally? We are comparing two ways of making the door open. If making the door open is not a halachic problem, then there is no contrast. I am saying that nothing physical happens to an electric eye or UV sensor to cause the motor to go on. However, with the mat, one is moving two metal plates together (or a conductive tape against a plate). Cut away the rubber, and you would see the circuit close. There is a visible cause and a visible effect. Even if part of the causality is only explainable by appeal to the quantum scale. (BTW, atoms are mostly vacuum. It's only quantum scale repulsion of electrons that fully explains why hitting a ball with a bat changes the course of the ball; why things don't just go through eachother.) ... : If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For : it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the : electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I : missing something here? It wouldn't be the motion of the electronc, even if they were macroscopic. You might as well prohibit flushing toilets and rolling marbles down a ramp, if one inherently prohibites the giving elecrons a chance to use their potential energy (voltage). All of the theories about why electricity is assur depend on the visible effects of the cercuit, or the visible making of a circuit, not the moving of current itself. (Except of course RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan even without a Sanhedrin.) : Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which : opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time? Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei. Also on that list: sparking, unless the motor's spin rate is based on the frequency of the AC current coming in. But PRDNL wouldn't help with a deOraisa. (RYE Spektor and ROY permit it for a derabbanan, the MB only for a double-derabbanan.) Water meters were mentioned. I posted about PRDNL anhd water meters in 2012 . Click on the subject line and see the thread. : Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe : Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone : on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the : electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur : d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." ... That's OC 4:84. Who doesn't talk about the invisible, but about electric power. "Vreo'in zeh bechush", although he means you can hear it from the loudspeaker. I do not see RMF saying that power that goes into results that in principle you cannot sense would be assur. : I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does : try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can : be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has : something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both : teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah". : It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely : speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be : meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should : also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used. But another part of the permissibility of speaking in the presence of someone with a hearing aid is that at times even with the hearing aid, the user doesn't hear anything, thus ruling out pesiq reishei, reducing it to davar she'ein miskavein. The problem I have with your "it sounds to me" is that it begs the question: Can there be havarah that can't be sensed? (Including: Can there be havarah if something burns below yad soledes bo?) Tir'u baTov! -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 Wed Apr 6 14:50:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between > Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the > other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also > possible. It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there are two. > The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read whichever sidra is next on the roster, but we are not back on track because we still have some of the four parshiyos coming up. Only on the shabbos after Hachodesh are we "back on track", at least until Pesach comes. >> This would be in accordance with the minhag of Eretz Yisrael to keep a >> 3-year cycle. I suspect that the minhag changed to the standard one year >> cycle with the Aliyah of the Baalei Tosafos and their influence on the >> Community in Eretz Yisroel. This explanation is missing a major piece of the puzzle. It's not that the Baalei Tosfos had such enormous influence on Bnei EY that they induced them to change their minhag. They never had such an influence. Rather, the crusaders completely wiped out the Yishuv of EY. By the end of the 12th century there were essentially no Jews left; the only place minhag EY survived was at the EY shul in Cairo. Slowly EY began to be repopulated, mostly by Ashkenazi olim. When the Ramban arrived there was a small community in Akko (which was under Xian rule) but not even a minyan of Jews living in Y'm. Thus the new EY community that developed, and that the Sefardim found there when they came after 1492, was composed of European olim with European minhagim, including reading the Torah on the Bavli cycle. > Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of > the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that > Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from > EY than among Sepharadim. How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. -- 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 Apr 6 15:10:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:10:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read : whichever sidra is next on the roster... Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? ... :> Qeri'as haTorah and (to pick up a topic from later) piyut are two of :> the stronger pieces of evidence utilized by those who believe that :> Ashkenazi practice shows the effects of a grater influx of Jews from :> EY than among Sepharadim. : How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue : for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. Then why did Ashk start out triennial? Admittedly, it changed by Rashi's day, so "start out" was quite short, but still, there are records of debate about it. Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the siyum every third Shavuos.) Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were shorter. There are better indicators, but this period in Jewish History is more RRW's thing than mine. Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and finally Egypt. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to micha at aishdas.org suffering, but only to one's own suffering. http://www.aishdas.org -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949) Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 15:22:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:22:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:50:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios... > :> The mishnah seems to imply otherwise. > > : I don't think so. I think it refers to the set of shabbosos that we > : know how to identify. On the gap shabbos/os, of course, we read > : whichever sidra is next on the roster... > > Then why mention the return to the usual parshios, the "back on track" > for a couple of weeks until Pesach, but not the equally long not-on-track > but still need to know what to lein parshios mid-sequence? Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. >> How does Qeri'as haTorah do that? On the contrary it seems to argue >> for a Bavli origin of Ashkenazim. > Then why did Ashk start out triennial? I've never heard that it did. > Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. How so? > (You might recall my mentioning that the version Ashk used made the > siyum every third Shavuos.) Sorry, I don't recall that. > Its placement also reflects leining with targum, something that > died (outside of Yemen) far later in places where the sedros were > shorter. Is there evidence for that, or is it just speculation? BTW Targum survived in some communities for some special readings, even after it stopped being used for the whole Torah. So it's possible that when and where Akdamos were written it was still done on Shavuos even if it wasn't the whole year. > Also, the last places Simchas Torah was accepted was Ashkenaz and > finally Egypt. Again, is this established, or speculation derived from precisely the proposition that you are trying to derive from it? BTW I just came across another survival of ancient minhag EY: The kiddush Rosh Chodesh that is well-attested in EY in the first millennium (e.g. in Mas' Sofrim and in the list of differences between EY and Bavel) survived into the 13th century in the Minhag-EY shul in Fostat, but only on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Eventually minhag EY died out in Egypt too, but the idea of having a special seder Rosh Chodesh Nissan lived on, and is still practised by Egyptian Jews today, under the name "Seder al-Tawhid" (Seder Hayyichud). -- 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 Apr 6 15:29:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:29:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > On 04/06/2016 04:26 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> As we do it today, there are also gaps between the parshios. Between >> Sheqalim and Zakhos is inevitable, as one is at the latest 1 Adar, and the >> other is the Shabbos of the 14th. Between Parah and haChodesh is also >> possible. >> > > It's not inevitable; If Shekalim is the 1st then Zachor is the 8th. > However in such a year the 15th is a normal Shabbos, except in Y'm. > There is always at least one normal Shabbos in Adar; this year there > are two. There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and Hahodesh. There is also a mnemonic for the dates of the hafsakot according on the date of 1 Adar, "Zivdu: Zyah Bu Dad Ubyu" but I've never found it very useful because the mnemonic is such a tongue-twister that I can never remember it and end up working out the dates from scratch and reverse engineering the mnemonic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 17:59:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:59:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:22:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, we're done with the interruption, and we're back in the groove. : The fact that the next interruption is already on the horizon is : irrelevant; it's the next interruption, not a continuation of this one. Again, I am not insisting this implication is muchrach, but look at the mishnah (Megillah 3:4): RC Adar that falls out on Shabbos, we read P Sheqalim... On the 2nd, Zakhor On the 3rd, Parah Adumah On the 4th, "HaChodesh haZeh Lakhem" On the 5th, we return to the sequence... The Ran (quoted by Tosafos YT) only discussed "basheini" saying it's the 2nd week after Sheqalim or after the break described in the ellipses at the end of the first line of my "translation". :> Aqdamus is a legacy of the triennial cycle. : How so? The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning of speach..." Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying he is prefacing. In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn bera H'..." 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 Wed Apr 6 18:10:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:10:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <20160406221018.GA32681@aishdas.org> <57058C21.9030400@sero.name> <20160407005932.GA3181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5705B370.3080401@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 08:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > The opening words are "As a preface to the words and the beginning > of speach..." > > Modern translations often insert a bracketed text to force it into > referring to the Diberos. Despite being said before describing BY > beneath Har Sinai, well before the actual 10 Diberos he would be saying > he is prefacing. > > In any case the more natural meaning is that it's the actual beginning > of all the Milin as a whole. Aqdamus was written to introduce "Beqadmn > bera H'..." Why not a preface to the day's laining? -- 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 Apr 6 19:33:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:33:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger's posts are very well thought-out. I've reached the limits of my knowledge on this topic. I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? RMB wrote: > ... RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we > all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan > even without a Sanhedrin. Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we *know* are working, but *appear* to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really can't complain. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 6 21:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> Message-ID: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. > The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between > 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd > and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and > Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and > Hahodesh. Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. I don't see how a siman helps with that. [Email #2. -mi] On 04/06/2016 09:10 PM, Zev Sero wrote [about Akdamus]: > Why not a preface to the day's laining? Note that Tosfos Megillah 24a d"h Uvenavi says that in their day they still did targum of the haftaros on Pesach and Shavuos, and also that of matan torah (i.e. the leining of the first day of Shavuos), but not that of any other leining or haftarah (d"h Lo Shanu on the previous page). Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. -- 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 Apr 6 23:04:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:04:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/06/2016 06:29 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > >> >> There is a nice siman for this in (IIRC) R. Zevin's Sefer Hamo`adim. >> The 4 Parshiyot parallel the 4 kosot at seder: you can drink between >> 1st cup and 2nd or between 2nd and 3rd, or both, but not between 3rd >> and 4th. So too there can be a normal Shabbat between Shekalim and >> Zachor or between Zachor and Fara, or both, but not between Fara and >> Hahodesh. >> > > Well, obviously, since Parah is *defined* as the Shabbos before Hachodesh. > I don't see how a siman helps with that. I checked RSZ's source, which turns out to be Yerushalmi Megilla 3:5. The context of the siman is a mahloket in the Yerushalmi whether Parah is defined as the Shabbat before Hahodesh or the Shabbat after Purim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 03:18:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:18:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Arba Parshiyos In-Reply-To: <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> References: <20160406202639.GD5241@aishdas.org> <570584AB.7050404@sero.name> <5705DDAC.7040002@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160407101838.GB3151@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:10:20AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Also, there seem to be those who say that the Yaacov ben Meir Levi who : wrote Yetziv Pisgam was Rabbenu Tam (though I've never heard that he : was a levi). If so, it *must* be a preface to the day's targum, since : by RT's day they certainly used the same annual cycle that we do. ... in parallel to the already existing Aqdamos. So it could be a 2nd hand reflection of the cycle in use when Aqdamus was written, rather than a dispoof of connection to the cycle. (BTW, the "-ta" ending is traditionally ascribed to the idea that when a Jew stops learning Torah (tav) he must immediately begin again (alef). A homily that does fit a siyum on Devarim and starting Bereishis far better than leining inyana deyoma. Of course, who knows if that was really the author's intent. It is a "cute" understanding of the piut and worth sharing either way.) And Yetziv Pisgam does not refer to pausing to give a preface before starting The Word. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. micha at aishdas.org "I want to do it." - is weak. http://www.aishdas.org "I am doing it." - that is the right way. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:55:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:55:26 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> > Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, > where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his > conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads > him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case, > I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to > Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings. > And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches > Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need > to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we know are > working, but appear to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are > issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really > can't complain. > Akiva Miller Pretty much what R' Asher Weiss says un putting electricity in the maakeh bpatish category defined as things that chazal didn't fit in other categories. However I think he would say gdolei haposkim will come to a consensus, not "each for himself" on major categories. KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 08:40:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Kitniyot, paper goods Message-ID: <20160407154022.7A2F717FBF0@nexus.stevens.edu> Can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. On Pesach, can one use paper plates, paper towels and napkins that are not certified kosher for Passover? A. Paper plates, paper towels and napkins generally contain starch. Some forms of raw starch are kitniyot, such as corn starch, while other forms of starch, such as wheat starch, are actual chametz. In the U.S, it can safely be assumed that starch used in manufacturing is kitniyot, most probably corn-based. Though one should not intentionally add kitniyot to food, with respect to paper goods this is not a concern because the starch that is part and parcel of the paper itself is nifsal mei'achila (inedible). (If paper goods contain wheat starch, the fact that it is nifsal mei'achila may not suffice to permit their use, see Magen Avrohom 442:4). Based on the above, in the US, one may use paper plates, paper towels and napkins even if not certified for Passover. For a full list of non-food items that can be used on Passover without certification please go to https://oukosher.org/passover/guidelines/non-food-items/non-food-items/. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 09:53:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:53:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <98b2c1adf42842f18e40db5e43ace133@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160407165337.GA21819@aishdas.org> RAM entered the discussion with: > There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions, > but in my experience this idea is very new. And appears to be trying to leave with: > I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great > example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos, > when we aren't even sure of what the issur is? (I agree that we lack clarity here, but I am not sure why RAM thinks it's a problem with the language rather than the ideas themselves.) Well, except that this notion that halakhah doesn't concern itself with phenomenona that people cannot experience unaided (in any situation) isn't limited to a discussion of electricity or even of Shabbos. The idea that canges internal to a chip in a fitbit wouldn't be an issue for hilkhos Shabbos (until there is some macroscopic effect of those changes) is by parallel to discussions of the permissibility of drinking water that contains creatures about the same size as a trace (thinkg "wire") on a chip. 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 Thu Apr 7 12:25:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 15:25:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy Message-ID: <20160407192530.8B8E617FAC2@nexus.stevens.edu> Last Shabbos we read Parshas Shmini, best known for discussing and specifying the requirements for discerning which animals are considered kosher. But what is a buffalo considered? Can we partake of a nice juicy buffalo burger? Although the Shulchan Aruch himself rules that a buffalo is considered a kosher beheimah, it is quite certain that he was not referring to our American buffalo, which, actually a bison, was unknown at the time... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: Buffalo Burgers and the Zebu Controversy". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me. kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 7 05:14:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:14:33 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A study of Dayan Usher Weiss on LED lights in his Tshuvos will reveal his Shita that such things are likely to be considered an issur under the rubric of Makeh B'patish. I didn't merit understanding all the halachic logic but I feel he would apply it here as well. We can be halachically exploitative and also include the view that your walking on Shabbos should not be the same as Chol! I'm sure many of us have seen the strange Shabbos walk avoiding large steps. Walking with a Fitbit may possibly be construed as transgressing this possuk in Nach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 07:30:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 10:30:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halacha Yomis - Matzah before Passover Message-ID: <20160408143111.6480417FAAD@nexus.stevens.edu> I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan... OU Kosher OU Kosher Halacha Yomis This column is dedicated in memory of: Rav Chaim Yisroel ben Reb Dov HaLevy Belsky, zt'l Senior OU Kosher Halachic Consultant (1987-2016) Q. I follow the minhag of not eating matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Am I permitted to eat matzah which is labeled "Not Kosher for Passover"? (A Subscriber's Question) A. Matzos which are labeled "Not Kosher for Passover" are made without a full-time mashgiach present during production, and the water used in kneading the dough is not mayim she'lanu (specially drawn water). Though we would not eat these matzahs on Pesach, it is not certain that the matzahs are absolute chametz. Mishnah Berurah 471:12 writes that the Rabbinic prohibition to not eat matzah on Erev Pesach, applies even to matzah that has folds or bubbles, since such matzahs are of questionable status, and they are not absolute chametz. This would imply that "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs may not be eaten Erev Pesach, since these matzahs are also of questionable status. Nonetheless, Rav Schachter, Shlita, maintains that the definition of matzah with respect to the minhag (practiced by some) not to eat matzah beginning Rosh Chodesh is not the same as the definition of matzah relative to Erev Pesach. Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 214:1) writes that a minhag is a form of a vow. Vows are interpreted in accordance with common usage of language. Since most people consider "Not Kosher for Passover" matzahs to be chametz, they may be consumed until Erev Pesach. More about this program and to subscribe visit https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis-email/ View archive on https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/ Subscribers can also ask their own questions on Kashrus issues and send them to grossmany at ou.org. These questions and their answers may be selected to become one of the Q and A's on OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. [] Forward Unsubscribe [] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 8 09:01:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:01:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eshbaal Message-ID: <20160408160147.GA26885@aishdas.org> >From http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/first-person-banning-baal or http://j.mp/1VdtbxE :-)BBii! -Micha Biblical Archaeology Society First Person: Banning Ba'al As published in the March/April 2016 Biblical Archaeology Review Hershel Shanks -- 04/04/2016 Was the proper name Eshbaal -- man of Ba'al -- banned in Judah after King David's time? A recent analysis suggests that it was. Ba'al, meaning lord or master, was a common divine appellative in Canaan and neighboring areas during Biblical periods, most frequently referring to the storm god. Very recently an inscription was uncovered at Khirbet Qeiyafa -- a site already famous for a late 11th-10th-century B.C.E. inscription -- about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. According to excavator Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, the site is probably an imposing fortress erected by King David facing the Philistines. ... The name 'Ishba'al or, more commonly, Eshbaal, is well known from the Bible. It means "man of Ba'al." (The name Beda` appears for the first time in this inscription.) ... In the Bible various Ba'al names appear of people who lived in King David's time or earlier (Jerubbaal [Judges 6:32], Meribbaal [1 Chronicles 9:40], etc.). But the Bible mentions no Ba'al names after this -- neither Ba'al nor Eshbaal. Ba'al names simply do not appear in the Bible after David's time. The archaeological situation is a bit, but not completely, different. We have more than a thousand seals and seal impressions (bullae) and hundreds of inscriptions from Israel and Judah from the post-David period (ninth-sixth centuries B.C.E.). The name Eshbaal is not to be found among these names. The situation with the name Ba'al is slightly different; it does occasionally appear in Israel -- and of course in Philistia, Ammon and Phoenicia. But not in Judah! It seems that Ba'al and Eshbaal were banned in David's kingdom. One reason may have been that, at least officially, Judah was monotheistic. Thus, names constructed with a form of a foreign deity's name -- especially of Ba'al, who was Yahweh's rival -- would not have been considered kosher. In addition, David's predecessor and rival, King Saul, fathered a son named Eshbaal (1 Chronicles 8:33 [2]) who reigned for two years (2 Samuel 2:10) -- another good reason to bar the name in David's kingdom. [2] "Ishbosheth" in the account in 2 Samuel 2-4. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 08:52:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:52:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> References: <570975C4.7060900@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160411155203.GA3225@aishdas.org> On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:36:04PM IDT, R Ben Waxman posted to Areivim: : https://twitter.com/benwaxman/status/718898333075566592 : Translation of something Rav Sharki said in an article on dati : students attending university: : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? This has to be a mistranslation. After all, being unable to find an answer is FAR short of proving no answer exists. Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and tragedy. 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil 3. God exists First proposal. Therefore 4. There is no evil But observation will tell you: 5. There is evil We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. So really only 3 & 5 are plausible open to denial: either there is no G-d, or there is no evil. As I posted there: Theists consistently reject #2 "If an OOO Being exists, there would be no evil." That is given short shrift, and therefore the real argument is really swept under the rug. A world in which the OOO Being provides all the good might be worse than a world in which the OOO Being wants to provide others the opportunity to be provides of good themselves. The assumption is that a world of passive recipients is better (more good) than a world of contributors. This argument is kind of like saying that: 1- A parent has the ability to see more obvious sources of pain in advance and help a child avoid them. 2- A good parent would try to do so. Yet 3- Good parents allow their toddlers to fall on their bums when learning to walk -- despite seeing it coming. Therefore, 4- there are no good parents. The answer is -- #2 is false. There are better goods than preventing all pain. But notice I didn't answer the question of theodicy, tzadiq vera lo. Arguably the question is unanswerable to humans. (Admittedly there are O Jews who deny #5, and assert that tragedy is an illusion. My argument is more that the best universe is one that has the lesser evil, that a paradox in the human condition makes a world with no tragedy itself imperfect. The question of the reality of evil is a tangent worth exploring, but not to go even further afield than my point.) R' Sherky is NOT possibly arguing we should therefore accept Prof Haslanger's argument, though. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: While RUS's name appears around the web both as "Sharky" and "Sherky", I'm going with the evidence of . -- 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 Mon Apr 11 16:21:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:21:41 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag Message-ID: I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, no chrain on fish. I wonder if any other groups have such a minhag , a nd what might be the origin of such a custom. 2nd question. In re nuts on pesach , It seems all the major agencies cite that any additive free whole nuts are ok without special cert. ( pecans excepted) . However the detroit vaad recommends assuring the nuts are paked in a hametz free facility. This is NOT noted by OU, CRChic, etc. i wonder if this would be an economic hardship that the non haredim lidvar hashem would hold to. Interestingly the costco kirkland nuts remark that they maybe packed in a place w wheat, soy ,etc... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 11 18:59:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:59:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat > ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, > no chrain on fish Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 08:18:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:18:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesach minhag In-Reply-To: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> References: <570C5666.8060203@sero.name> Message-ID: <570D11D4.8000908@sero.name> On 04/11/2016 09:59 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 04/11/2016 07:21 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: >> I learned recently that some in chabad have a minhag not to eat >> ka'arah foods at the seder after ritual use. Eg. No romaine salad, >> no chrain on fish http://chabadlibrary.org/books/chasidim/otzar/4/14/39.htm Note that although this does include all the ingredients of charoses, it does not include eggs, or the greens that might be used for karpas, contrary to the sources I will cite later. > Not *after* the seder, but *before*, i.e. on Erev Pesach and the first > day. Of course it's impossible to avoid matzah and wine on the first > day, but there is at least some idea of minimising their consumption, > so they can be "lete'avon" at the second seder. > > Of course one may ask why maror should be "lete'avon", since that seems > to contradict its purpose, and why charoses or its ingredients should be > "lete'avon", since one is davka supposed *not* to taste them on the maror. The minhag not to eat maror before the seder goes back at least to the Rashba and Rashi. Although the Bet Yosef dismisses it, the Rama cites it, and it appears to be common in many communities, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi. The BY's question is answered by many, saying that even in the case of matzah "teavon" in this context means novelty, and the pleasure that comes from that, not an actual desire for the taste of the food, so it doesn't matter whether the food tastes good or bad, or isn't even tasted at all. See under "shulchan orech", that the Ashkenazi custom is not to eat even whole eggs at the first seder, but rather to eat only beaten eggs, which is probably the origin of the common minhag to eat the egg mashed up in salt-water as a "soup". See also who says it's the common minhag of sefardim not to eat lettuce or greens, beyond the requirements, for a day before each seder, including at the first seder. -- 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 Tue Apr 12 14:28:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:28:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness Message-ID: Cannot taste the bitterness 1. "Filled me with bitter herbs - Hisbiaani bMrorim - hirvani Laana - sated of bitter" - Midrash Eichah in Psicha and on the Passuk - compares the Exodus of Mitzrayim to the Exile after the First Temple was destroyed. 2. Apparently the bitter taste of these vegetables was familiar to all. 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after kiddush. 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush. A simple person might prefer to start off with Maror ASAP. Someone may have stolen the Karpas. Those who pursue radishes for Karpas may prefer it as a secondary variety of Maror, reminding us not to consider this the REAL maror, which can only be eaten with the Matzah, in advance of next year's Korban Pesach. 5. What if one ate the Karpas leaning - bhesseiba? That would explain the child's train of thought - you eat bitter herbs - for slavery and you ate them leaning? Sorry - I have no source yet for that. When Matza was just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed Thaddeus of Rome. 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth, just call in Rabbi Vaya to check it, or alternatively? take it off the menu, finding some other food for appetizer. 7. skip the appetizer. Renal patients who cannot drink begin with Kiddush on Matzah, which some would much prefer. The Magid would be after the meal had initialized. 8. Lately I checked two heads of Romaine lettuce. When I sample some leaves, no bitterness was to be found, just a very mild sweetness. in fact the Pri Chadash in back of SA Orach Chaim - openly advocates that totally sweet lettuce - sans bitterness - is perfectly acceptable! To recap, the Mishnah lists five grain varieties for Matzah, which are exclusive. It then lists 5 varieties for Maror, but even the Amoraim debated what to buy. Rav Huna Bar abba ? sought Maror - the bitterest herb eponymous with bitterness, as the Mehadrin would seek. Rava chided him - Chas Rachmana Alan - Hashem had consideration for us and prefers Chassa (pun - means lettuce) which has some sweetness. 9. I take this metaphorically - Hashem is always keeping the balance of sweetness and bittterness in the fortunes of the Jerwish People. Fixating on bitterness can lead to bad results. 10. The Pri Chadash quotes the famous Aruch (of Rome, a century before Rashi, disciple perhaps of Rabeinu Chananeil) on Charchavina, one of the 5 species of the Mishna, defined generically - "one sort of bitter herbs". 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 sons taste it ? 12. Is Maror a specific species exact type of plant? Ateres Tzvi (margin of OC 473) and Elya Rabba combine to say there is a family called Lettuga - lettuces. That helps immensely - as the leading species candidate is "bitter lettuce" - Hebrew Chassa Matzpen - has spine of bumps on its leaf, and is a glorified dandelion! My neighbor the botanist has no idea where to find it but he offered me some fresh horseradish leaves. Horseradish relates to the cabbage family - including endives, which get some mention. 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection. My father's tears would flow as he ground his horseradish every year. The Chochmas Shlomo, Rav Shlomo Kluger, seems to have the high road of directness here. Rambamists can see that the examples of foods barely edible - which barely are considered normal foods - in Shvisas Asor - are these very vegetables - Chizrin. 15. The famous Rav Chaim Berlin, son of the Netziv, apparently got medical advice not to eat horseradish, and sought grounds to absolve his Neder. He sent a letter to his father the Netziv whether he should continue to eat Khrein. Netziv - as predictable - answers - use Sallatin - lettuce - like the common practice, and also the zayis olive size is very small. [Meromei Sadeh]. 16. In OC 473 the Lvush and Elya Rabba - praise to the publishers of the new Levush set - discuss Maror, and Ateres Tzvi explains that any lettuce is fine, as long as it is bitter. 17. Biologically chickory and lettuce are very close. If even the cabbages - the latin name braccidae are also included in Maror, then perhaps both kale in its beauty and varieties are included, even perhaps arugula. 18. Perhaps I will make the bracha on kale, then arugula, then Romaine, then horseradish for mimetic imitation of my father. 19. For me - no more sweet or tasteless Maror, I cannot make it bitter anymore. 20. See also Kovetz - in back of the old Rambams. See Aruch al Hashas who has in kilayim and in other places diagrams and exact species names for all the candidates mentioned in the mishnayos. There is an alphabetical index in the last volume. 21. Identification of Chizrin with Chazeres is no sure thing. Professor Felix has a sefer called haChaklaut..... which explains from a farmer's point of view what it means that a crop thrives in the shade. 22. This is actually a call for help! I imagine most people deal with these questions annually. Please - any opinion or information will be helpful to me. 23. David Wacholder 5:15 PM (2 minutes ago) Email: dwacholder at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Tue Apr 12 15:30:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:30:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Cannot taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160412223002.GA28342@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 05:28:24PM -0400, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: : Cannot taste the bitterness : 3. The son asks - why tonight only bitter [kulo maror]. He just ate : bitter herbs, and he wants to know why no sweet herbs were offered after : kiddush. : 4. The Mishnah implies that Maror was eaten right after Kiddush... Matzah too? And the qorban Pesach? Or, the mishnah implies that there was no fixed hagafah yet -- as we see from our Magid appearing as a collection of statements made in machloqes. No tanna actually says that we should say all of our Maggid; it's a follow everyone amalgamation. In an unscripted seder (is it a seder if the script didn't exist yet? how mesudar was is?) the son could have asked his questions at any point. And not even necessarily 4 in a row. Apparantly the Mah Nishtanah follows Hillel, or otherwise it is weird that matzah would come before marror. If, how ever, the child saw both at the same time, the sequence in the mishnah is not temporal. : When Matza was : just unrisen Pita bread, and they held a practice session for the Korban in : the Mikdash, they likely ate only fire roasted lamb like the esteemed : Thaddeus of Rome. Was? My softmatza.com order is due tomorrow. Ashkenazim probably stopped only a century to a few centuries ago -- the Rama's "no thicker than a tefach" isn't describing a brick. Teeth can only do so much! : 6. Apologies - why eat this possibly infested bitter herbs, requiring : dipping into vinegar or sharp charoseth... I know there is a machloqes about what kappa is, including some kind of worm, Rashi and Rashbam say it's something in / or about the sap. The wild lettuce in Israel, Lactuca serriola, "prickly lettuce" (wiki: ). It is the closest wild relative of cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The plant is named Lactuca from the same root as "lactose", and is in the dandelion tribe of the daisy family -- a milkweed. Prickly lettuce has soporific properties, milder than opium. It is also a mild diuretic. Vinegar (or any other acid) will neutralize the alkaloids in the milky sap. So, given Rashi, I would assume that's what kappa is about. ... : 11. The Yerushalmi is quoted as debating whether Sweet Chassa is validly : Maror; bitter Chassa is certainly valid. Are these species which will at : some time later become bitter? Or must they be bitter even now as the 4 : sons taste it ? To clarify: that's the Y-mi's question that gets two answers, not a question on the Y-mi's debate. ... : 13. Kale is related to the cabbages, as is horseradish. See Chochmas : Shlomo - ibid in the margin - eloquently defending a sfeik sfeika - double : doubt - justifying any bitter tasting herb. As per the above, dandelions may be our closest option. Look at the picture on wikipedia -- similar leaves and flowers, although the plant is far taller and thicker than any dandelion I've seen. As you note -- also related: chicory. Thus reinforcing the idea -- a chiddush to those of us who grew up on horseradish -- that maror is bitter, not "burning hot". And you can abandon chasah and eat endive, which is indeed bitter. : 14. My problem is - the winds of the discussion imply palpable : bitterness on the tongue, not just associated projection... Except for the other opinion in the Y-mi, which makes it clear that the point is the projection. 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 Wed Apr 13 09:07:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:07:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum Message-ID: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... To find out more, read the full article "Insights Into Halacha: The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum". I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask. Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: Rabbi Spitz recently appeared on the 'Kashrus On the Air' radio show, discussing Quinoa and Kitniyos issues. To hear a recording of the show please click here: https://soundcloud.com/jroot-radio/yosef-wikler-apr-07?in=jroot-radio/sets/kashrus-on-the-air. "Insights Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me or click here to subscribe kol tuv and Good Shabbos, Y. Spitz Yerushalayim yspitz at ohr.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 13 13:16:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Quinoa - Kitniyos Conundrum In-Reply-To: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20160413161033.42B5917FC12@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly, the question that seems to be utmost on people's minds > this Erev Pesach is not about chametz or even cleaning properly. No, in > 2016 the biggest issue still seems to be whether quinoa is considered > Kitniyos and whether Ashkenazim can eat it on Pesach. In fact, the world's > largest hashgacha recently reversed their long standing position... This is last years info. The link is to an article from 5775. The OU & Star-K are still certifying quinoa, as they did last year. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 14 18:51:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 21:51:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos Message-ID: Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this (even opening with the remark that this halacha is "pashut - simple"), yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. I will concede that this was a literally parenthetical (or rather, bracketed) comment, and perhaps we should not darshen too much into it. But on the other hand, he had the option of saying that a choleh may *eat* kitnyos himself, and insted he took the extra step of saying that *we* may do the cooking. And yet, the Chofetz Chaim omitted the warning which is so ubiquitous today, that the cooking should be done in separate pots, not to be eaten from by healthy Ashkenazim. So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. (Plenty of poskim talk about ta'aroves kitniyos, but that's usually an after-the-fact situation, and I don't want to get bogged down on whether or not the situations are similar. I'd rather hear about those who explicitly address the keilim issue.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 07:15:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:15:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ta'am kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160415141538.GA30368@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:51:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : So here is my question: Where, and from whom, do we first hear that : Ashkenazim don't only avoid eating kitniyos be'en, but that we even avoid : ingesting *ta'am* kitniyos. RMF explains that one may drink whisky (51 weeks a year) aged in wine casks because we do not prohibit ta'am stam yeinam. The core of his argument is that stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6 (YD 134:5). One can taste the wine in a mixture of one part wine to 6 parts water. (IM YD 1:62) Well, qitniyos is batel berov. (Rama OC 453:1, see MB ad loc that explains the Rama must mean where the qitniyos is a mi'ut, and is not permitting every mixture.) Bringing me to the need to switch the formula for KLP Coca Cola. Corn is a late edition to qitniyos, as it is a New World plant. Corn syrup adds the issue of mei qitniyos. A 12 oz can of coke has 140 Cal (Pepsi: 150). High fructose corn syrup is 4 Cal/gm, so that 12 fluid oz can cannot contain more than 35 gm = 1-1/4 oz (weight) mei qitniyos. Less than 10%, never mind rov. So, the problem with standard American Coke is mei iffy-qitniyos that is batul. And yet it's avoided on Pesach? (According to 80% of tasters prefer Mexican Coke, which -- like KLP Coke -- only differs by the use of sugar rather than HFCS. So I hope no one from Coke is actually reading this post.) :-)BBii! -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 Fri Apr 15 07:49:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Wacholder via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 10:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness Message-ID: 1. R' Micha pointed out the Yerushalmi discussion whether Chassa metuka sweet lettuce is kosher. That shows that the name - Chazeret Chasa - synonymous with Marror is sufficient, and bitter taste is not necessary. 2. R' Chaim Kanievsky points out that the Chazon Ish - Orach Chaim page 398 in Otzar Hachochma - strongly rejects that conclusion from the Yerushalmi! (hat tip to R' Kalman Gutman!) 3. After 6 lines pointing out how vital the taste of Maror is, CI shows the absurds of such a conclusion - if so you can leave the Maror in Chazeres, and need not taste it at all - swallow in a sieve - and since any vegetable which is bitter is sufficient to be Yotzei, we see that the bitter taste is the governing principle. 4. 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond edible. 6. Thus we should pursue bitter lettuce. The paradox is that the lettuce industry spends all its resources to prevent "bolting" - becoming bitter. The economy runs on sweet lettuce, as CI also pointed out. Pesach is in spring, so it is not so simple. 7. That would be the practical problem the Yerushalmi is attacking. You do not need the strongest bitterness, mild transitional bitterness sufficient. 8. The super-kosher bug-free industry now markets "greenhouse" kale and arugula, which are mildly bitter. I purchased both last night. Usually they are used by French chefs. This is a classic Chazon Ish. He wanted Torah based lifestyle, and Mehadrin bitterness in Maror fits right in with his theme. Build on the sound simple meaning of the Torah. -- David Wacholder Email: dwacholder at gmail.com dwacholder at optonline.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:59:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:59:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos Message-ID: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Or if you want, I am equally reviving the threads "Minhag Avos and Minhag haMakom" (see the group of threads at ) "Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva" "Paradigm Changes in Halacha" or the quite timely "obsession with kitniyot" In AhS this week, I found I was not alone in concluding from Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim ch.4, cases in both TB and RY) that there is a general rule binding one (of a community) to maintain minhag avos. (At least when there is no conflicting single minhag hamaqom.) The AhS (YD 119:42, closing paranthetic) cites the minhag of Benei Baishan (Pesachim 50b) not to travel from Tzur to Tzidon on erev Shabbos. His case is a visitor who is keeping he minhagim of his host community. The Shakh and Maharal Chaviv say that if everyone else is eatting something that by his minhag is prohibited -- not as local pesaq, but as actual minhag -- he may eat it with them. The AhS leaves it with a tzarikh iyun gadol, because visiting a place should not allow their minhagim to override minhag avos. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 15 08:43:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:43:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Can't taste the bitterness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57110C14.1000403@sero.name> On 04/15/2016 10:49 AM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote: > 5. CI concludes with Chacham Tzvi #119 that one must wait until your > lettuce is bitter, but only mildly bitter, not totally beyond > edible. This is not true. The ChTz says no such thing. -- 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 Sun Apr 17 09:00:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit Message-ID: I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat. Both of them are important experts in halacha and modern technology Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need t fixler said he heard the same psak from t ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 03:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:27:35 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 1:02 PM Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I was at the recent torah u mada conference in bar Ilan. I asked both > Rabbi dr fixler and rosen about using the fitbit on shabbat.... > Both answered that there is no technical problem nevertheless they felt it > was zilzul shabbat unless there was a medical need r fixler said he heard > the same psak from r ariel chief rabbi of ramat gan Why is it not mesaken mane? [Transliteration mine. -micha] -- Shui Haber From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:27:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:27:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Shui Haber wrote: > Why is it not mesaken mane? [transliteration still mine -micha] They hold that anything that cannot be seen or felt is nor metaken-maneh or any other melacha. Of course if one pushes buttons or has a model in which the results are shown immediately on the watch then it would be forbidden. The assumption is that nothing on the watch indicates that it is recording. Rosen indicated to me that he has written all this but I do not at present have his teshuva. The general approach of tzomet is that (almost) all their products are meant for special individuals etc, sick, police, doctors etc when needed. Though they don't manufacturer a smart watch the same principles hold. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 04:51:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:51:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us from my question.) My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can remember. But the hagada seems to say more. It does not merely tell what the proper response should be, but it also seems to direct that response to specific responder(s). I am referring to the hagada's words, "v'af atah". What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! Am I totally off track? Anyone see my question? Does anyone have a translation or perush that doesn't ignore the word "af"? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:06:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMB: > > Simplest example, in https://youtu.be/9pRzyioUKp0 Dr Sally Haslanger > (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) > G-d could not exist because an OOO Being could prevent all evil and > tragedy. > > 1. If God exists, then he/she/it would be OOO > 2. If an OOO being exists, then there would be no evil > 3. God exists > > First proposal. Therefore > 4. There is no evil > > But observation will tell you: > 5. There is evil > > We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. > (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually once started a thread here called ?What can?t God do??. Some examples: Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? Can God lie? I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. > (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a > prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil > to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, God, have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God really want that? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 08:04:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:04:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5714F781.9020002@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:51 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > The Hagada's section about the rasha can be divided into four sections: > > (1) what the rasha says/asks: Mah haavoda hazos lachem > (2) a perush on what he really means: lachem v'lo lo, kafar b'ikar > (3) the proper response: hak'heh es shinav, baavur zeh > (4) a perush on the response: he would not have been saved > > (I am deliberately not translating "hak'heh", as it would distract us > from my question.) I will, however, point out that translating it "knock out", or as any kind of blow, is completely ignorant. There is simply no way that it can mean that. So where does this stupid idea come from? It *could* come from some amhoretz confusing it with "hakei", hei kaf hei, meaning to hit. But I think it's more likely to come from Yiddish, a language the baal hagada never even heard of, and the phrase "hack ois", or in English "hack out". > My question is about the third of these. If the hagada would simply > have said, "Hak'heh his teeth, and tell him, Baavur zeh...", that > would fit ALL the various translations and explanations that I can > remember. What specific wording are you suggesting instead of the ones the baal hagadah uses? > What is being added by these words "v'af atah". "And even you should > hak'heh his teeth". There seems to be some sort of logical argument > being made, that there is someone else who would *obviously* hak'heh > his teeth, but no, even you! You must do it too! > > Am I totally off track? I think so. How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him. -- 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 Mon Apr 18 08:09:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:09:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: What is the status of cooking kitniyot in a pot on Pesach (for ashkenazim). Outside of Israel this is relevant only for small children, sick etc. In Israel it is relevant this year as to whether one can cook kitniyot on the 7th day of Pesach for the immediate following shabbat. All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the pot even for use the following year ! He further claims that this is the standard custom. I have seen that RHS allows use the same day. Does anyone know of others who require actually kashering the pot even if it won't be used until Pesach next year. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:04:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha Message-ID: I asked why the Hagada uses the words "v'af atah" to introduce the answer to the rasha. R' Zev Sero responded: > How else should the baal hagada transition from what your wicked > son says to how you, the father, should respond? He explains that > your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say > something harsh to him. Interesting thought. But if so, then for the other OOPS! I hadn't noticed that these exact same words introduce the Hagada's answer to the chacham. And rightly so - Your child is asking a detailed question, and you too should respond with a detailed answer. My bad. Thanks! But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? (The She'eino Yodea Lish'ol never asks anything at all, so there is no congruency to invoke RZS's suggestion.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 18 16:14:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:14:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hagada's response to the rasha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57156A61.2000800@sero.name> On 04/18/2016 07:04 PM, Akiva Miller wrote: > > But now my question is about the Tam, who asks a very simple question, and gets a very simple answer. So he too should get the "v'af atah [...] emar lo" like the the chacham and rasha. But instead, the answer to the tam is introduced with "v'amarta aylav". This brings three questions, where the tam differs from both the chacham and rasha: > > 1) Why no "v'af" for the tam? > 2) Why "amarta" instead of "atah [...] emar"? > 3) Why "aylav" instead of "lo"? Because he simply quotes the pasuk. In the cases of the first two sons he (for some reason) davka *doesn't* quote the pasuk's response (Avadim Hayinu to the chacham and Zevach Pesach Hu to the rasha), but makes one up for the chacham, and borrows the she'eino yodea lish'ol's answer for the rasha. For the second two sons he simply quotes the pesukim verbatim. -- 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 Tue Apr 19 13:34:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:34:09 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to others subunits (e.g. ethnic). Any good actuary (or even a poor one) can tell you correlation doesn't prove causation, but it does provide some thoughts on some interesting questions (e.g. why the switch to ethnic minhagim from geographic ones?). 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 01:07:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:07:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: a story from years ago A friend of mine lived near RMF on the lower east side. One year RMF invited him for seder. However the friend didn't eat gebrochs but was too polite to tell RMF that he couldn't come because he was more machmir and so made up some excuse. Same thing happened the next year. The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat at my seder. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 05:17:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:17:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special Message-ID: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Pesach is a Yom Tov of diverse moods. The tragic and heroic, the mournful and hopeful, the somber and sentimental ? strangely commingled and reflected in the services and rituals. One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l?zecher aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b?Av. Interestingly, the first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b?Av. So as Pesach begins Friday evening this year (and last), so too, Tisha b?Av (actual date) begins Friday evening this year (and last). At our seder, we read about the Four Children (quite different from each other, but a portion of each of the sons in all of us). On Pesach we usher in the solemn days of Sefirah, which cast a spell upon the mirthful spirit of this Yom Tov and which recalls the ill-fated Bar Kochba rebellion with its gloomy aftermath; and on the same night, we open the door for Eliyahu HaNavi, the harbinger of glad tidings. On the day we recite Yizkor (with sad overtones), we recite Hallel (quite the opposite). On the day when we read the Haftorah of the ?Valley of the Dry Bones,? and we ask with the prophet: ?Son of man, can these bones live?? (Ezek. 37); this very same day, we read Shir Hashirim, the song of youth and of hope. When we think of all the trouble, travail, terrorism in the world and some of the trials and tribulations in our own lives, we can drink four cups of wine and temporarily forget our troubles. May your present be better than your past and not as good as your future! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:42:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:42:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pre-Pesach Special In-Reply-To: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> References: <3DB70106-2AAE-4CDB-9CEB-5182A0549DE7@cox.net> Message-ID: <20160420154253.GA21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:17:29AM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: : One thing that stands out in my mind is the symbol of the egg (l'zecher : aveilut). It serves as a reminder of Tisha b'Av. Interestingly, the : first day of Pesach is always the same day as Tisha b'Av. The iqar is to have two cooked foods. Egg and shankbone is a layer on top of that. Judging from the Ari's lining up the items on the ke'arah with the 10 sefiros, wre are using the egg as the cooked food in memory of the chagigah, and the bone to regall the qorban pesach. One could link that to mourning, that we are mourning the real seder, complete with qorban, as we sit down to our best-we-can-do one. And we did lose the ability to make a qorban pesach on 9 beAv. But the egg isn't really about aveilus directly. 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 Wed Apr 20 08:47:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:47:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:07:55AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The third year RMF already realized that something was fishy and explicitly : asked my friend why he wouldn't eat by him. When the friend told him the : real reason RMF said why didn't you tell me right away. He called over 2 : guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said : now you can eat at my seder. I know also the IM permits Ashkenazim who daven "Sfard" to switch back to Ashkenaz (even over 150 years after the family first switched to). But I didn't think he was in general a believer in the idea that Litvisher minhagim were superior to other East European ones. Just that davening was differenct because it's a switch back to the earlier nusach. So what's going on here? Why would he encourage someone to quit the minhag of gebrochts? (For weaker grounds than usually argued against qitnios.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning, micha at aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to http://www.aishdas.org mend." Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 08:57:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:57:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> References: <20160420154738.GB21802@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> I can't answer for sure but my guess would be that RMF felt that one could quit gebrochs for a sufficiently good reason and he felt that this was a good reason. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 20 20:17:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:17:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos References: Message-ID: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> R? AM: What about an ordinary old-fashioned film camera? Without a flash, there's nothing electrical about it. In fact, when one presses the shutter, nothing at all happens except that some chemical reactions occur in the film. Even after Shabbos, there is no visible change to the film, until after it has undergone some specific chemical treatment. Yet I've never seen a shomer shabbos person use such a camera on Shabbos, nor have I ever hear it suggested that it might only be d'rabanan. ------------------ Old MYG: That?s a great question, I think, about the film camera. I agree that it makes sense that it should be only a d?rabanan, except for Polaroid. And the d?rabanan may well be that since its entire purpose is to be in service to that Kesivah, it?s a Kli She?melachto L?issur, and therefore muktzah. But if that?s so, then the heteirim of muktzah would therefore apply, like tiltul min hatzad, and shvus d?shvus, l?tzorech gufo, and so on? After reading through it, I still don?t see any reason to prohibit it besides for Muktzah? Rabbi Bleich at this link (http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035/No.%203/Survey%20of%20Recent.pdf) quotes R? SZA that it?s ?mistaver? that taking a film photo is assur m?drabanan. Rabbi Bleich himself is not so impressed with that argument. ----------------------------- New MYG: I thought of another issur ? taking a photo with a film camera is Hachanah, because you?re only taking it for the result that you will get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d?oraysa. KT and CKVS, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:50:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:56 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 05:41:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:41:11 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you should also say something harsh to him This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the harsh attack. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:32:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:32:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] FW: Fitbit on Shabbos In-Reply-To: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> References: <015601d19b7c$4b0984a0$e11c8de0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160421193255.GA9816@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:17:10PM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : I thought of another issur -- taking a photo with a film camera is : Hachanah, because you're only taking it for the result that you will : get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d'oraysa. Return back to nidon didan (from the subject line)... A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the same reasoning would apply. But many other such devices can be used as a digital watch on Shabbos. So carrying it around -- even if you want the step tracking -- is not ONLY for the tracking. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are not a human being in search micha at aishdas.org of a spiritual experience. You are a http://www.aishdas.org spiritual being immersed in a human Fax: (270) 514-1507 experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 12:50:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:50:56PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to : make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not : a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. Actually, for RMF in particular, I find that hard to imagine. The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they were in error, he does advocate a more limited form -- cooking dishes from boiled matzah because the result may be confused with recipes that produce chameitz. The Keneses haGedolah (17th cent) confirms the Raavan's fears with a story of it actually happening. Someone made fish "breaded" with matzah meal, and the neighbor mistakenly learned from it that it was okay to fry fish in actual flour. Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after the Besh"t -- there are stories about the Baal Shem Tov eating keneidelach on Pesach, the Magid of Mezritch did not eat gebrochts. The SA haRav (discussed here annually) says that the change was due to a change in how we make matzah. This is the same generation in which kneading time was counted toward the mil, and therefore the whole process got more rushed. Until then, the chance of umixed flour remaining on/in the dough was unrealistic. I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thing cracker matzos; it would only apply to the Rama's only less than a tefach matzah. So here you have two people writing at close to the same time, one explaing why the minhag recently started, the other assuming the minhag is old and no longer applicable to the current umdena. But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer applicable. 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 Thu Apr 21 13:04:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:04:14 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: between gebroks and kitniyos, with our modern eye could we say one is more justified or were both products of the time. eg gebroks was invented in altererebe's time as a reaction to the nexus of thick matzos with incompetent bakers. kitniyos a reaction to legume-flour nexus . today , almost all matzos are either mechanized or learnedly baked; and only thin matzos made in ashkenazi land [unless you order softmatza.com]. and though legume flours like chickpea are extant, the communities that primarily use them never accepted this new minhag. it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them off... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 19:50:16 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > All the seforim I have seen pasken that if one cooks kitniyot on > Pesach in a pot then one can either use the pot again for normal > Pesach use either that day or after waiting 24 hours. > I saw one newsletter that claimed that one needs to kasher the > pot even for use the following year ! Last week, in the thread "Ta'am kitniyos", I wrote that Mishne Berurah 453:7 writes that if a choleh - even a choleh she'AYN bo sakanah - needs kitniyos on Pesach, one may cook it for him. I was struck by how casually he said this, yet he said nothing about the keilim involved. So I will now rephrase the question that I had asked there: RET referred here to "seforim". Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this question in writing, and gives his reasoning. (My wild guess is that if such a source can be found, it is less likely to be in the context of baby food, and more likely to be in the context of an Ashkenazi who was invited to eat at a Sephardi home on Pesach.) Anyone know of such seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 21 13:50:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:50:07 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Apr 22, 2016 5:50 AM, "Micha Berger" wrote: > The minhag is as old as the Raavan (12th cent), although he thinks they > were in error, he does advocate a more limited form ... > Gebrochts in its full form doesn't come to pass until a generation after > the Besh"t... The SA haRav... > I cannot picture RMF simply rejecting an SA haRav as not even a shitah. > Interestingly, a contemporary of the SAhR, the Shaarei Teshuvah, says that > gebrochts only made sense back before our more recent thin cracker matzos... > But it is possible RMF agreed with the ST, and that the SAhR's world > used thicker (although still cracker-like) matzos than we do. In which > case, he could have held the minhag -- while once real -- is no longer > applicable. I don't see how any of these considerations suggest that Gebrochts is a Minhag that requires Hatarah. In fact I think it more than likely they reflect otherwise. The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are hardly substantial. And if there is any substance to the reason being related to the change in the way Matza is made, well then being so late, it can hardly be considered a binding Minhag. And one opinion is not adequate to propel activity to the point of being a binding Minhag, especially when it is so poorly justified. BTW it is astonishing that Matza of 10mm thickness be considered edible when baked to the point of being hard. You would need a hammer and cold chisel to break it. It makes no sense. Such Matza would only be edible if it was baked soft. Re the ShTeshuvah, he limits the problem to soft Matza, which is GRATED on a RibAysen (and explains that the problem no longer exists due to changes to the Matza used for making meal being baked hard and describe CRUSHING it) so it must have been soft. Soft Matza that is whole can be easily evaluated to determine if it is fully baked. Once it is grated however, that becomes impossible. The problem is compounded when you remember that probably the most important quality sought by the balabusta is that it be as white as possible so the risk of being under baked is all the greater. There was not ever a concern that flour remained in the Matza and that might become Chamets. But even if it did it can not become Chamets since it has been heated. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 09:11:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:11:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160422161136.GA4937@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:04:14PM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : it all then comes down to minhag avos , and who is empowered to cast them : off... An earlier question... Given our lack of minhag hamaqom, do we want to cast minhag avos off? What ties us to community if we're not connecting "laterally" to our contemporaries if not our connection to the past? Pesach is so experiential and so nostalgia driven, perhaps we should harbor / develop enough attachment to minhag avos (mimeticism) for that alone to motivate keeping qitniyos. :-)|,|ii! (And a special :-)|,ii to any Granikim out there!) -Micha PS: Yes, I do appreciate the irony that in a post about preserving minhag avos, I do a "shout out" to those who use 2 matzos at their seder. Even though most of them are doing so in a choice of textualism over mimeticism. -- 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 Fri Apr 22 09:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 06:50:07AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The earliest source pretty much rejected it and stories about the Besht are : hardly substantial. The stories about the Besht are that he DID eat gebrochts. This isin contrast to the SA haRav who was firmly against. And the SA haRav (shu"T #6 in the bac of vol 6) IS substantial. See last year's BTW, while I fint this hard to accept as RMF's pesaq, R Eli Turkel told us last year that RSZA does hold as per the story about RMF: > In Halichos Shlomo (p90) it states explicitly that one can change his > custom and eat gebrochs after hatart nedarim. However, this should be done > only if there is a good reason (tzorach chashuv) for the change. Thus, for > a chatan he would allow the hatarat nedarim if keeping bebrochs would cause > family difficulties. And R Yisrael Herczeg wrote: > ... I just looked over the notes of the droshoh Rav Yitzchok > Mordechai HaKohen Rubin gave last Shabbos. He said that Rav Elyashiv > allowed for hataras neder on gebrochts. He also mentioned that Rav Chaim > Kanyevski said that the Steipler was matir neder on gebrochts for someone > who had difficulty eating matzah unless it was softened with liquid. He > added that Rav Chaim Greineman said that the Chazon Ish told him that the > Steipler's heter was invalid. And yet in his own life: > I asked Rav Elyashiv z"l if I could be matir neder on gebrokts and he told > me I could not. >From R/Prof Y Levine: > A friend of mine who did not eat gebrokts and who was a close talmud > of Rav Tuvia Goldstein , Z"L, a well-know halachic expert here in > the US, asked Reb Tuvia about changing this and eating > gebrokts. Reb Tuvia replied, "Mutar Loch, Mutar Loch, Mutar > Loch." and that was it! And quoting http://torasaba.blogspot.com/2015/03/of-gebrokts-and-kitniyos.html he wrote: > The Sefer Ashrei Haish quotes Rav Elyashuv zt"l who says that one > who has the Minhag of not eating Gebrokts may change his Minhag to > eating Gebrokts. > It is preferable to make Hatoros Nedarim but not necessary. One may > rely on the Hataras Nedarim made on Erev Rosh Hashana. > Reb Elyashuv holds the original Chumra of Gebrokts started when > Matzohs were thick Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST that the minhag refers to a kind of matzah most of you do not eat. I have a few lb from the Syrian community in Flatbush, in addition to the usual. So if I had the minhag of nisht gebrochts, RYSE might still have told me to limit my hataras nedarim and continue not eating Syrian-style matzos with liquids. IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for reasons similar to the RYSE report. :-)|,|ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Apr 22 14:11:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fitbit on Shabbos Message-ID: Regarding hachanah, R' Micha Berger wrote: > A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the > same reasoning would apply. True, but hachana is a problem only if specific actions are taken to do that preparation. For example, washing one's hands over a sink full of dirty dishes is okay, even if one likes the idea that the dishes will get wet, provided that he'd be washing his hands there anyway, even if the sink was empty. So too for the Fitbit, which is already attached to whatever, and one is not doing any specific action for the Fitbit. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Apr 24 04:00:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:00:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> References: <20160421195019.GB9816@aishdas.org> <20160422164438.GB4937@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Notice we have convlicting reports about RYSE, but the one who says > he allowed leaving the minhag of gebrochts didn't so much dismiss the > minhag as wrong as much as agree with the ST ... > IOW, my wanting confirmation of the story about RMF has to do with my > opinion of RMF's tendencies in pesaq. Not that the idea is inadmissable. > And I'm betting that if RMF did advise hataras nedarim, it was for > reasons similar to the RYSE report. May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. The closest true argument was documented by the ShTeshuvah who clearly related the problem to the type of Matza baked to be used for Gebrochts - it was at risk of not being properly baked [presumably because they were trying to keep it as white a possible] and being Chamets in the first place - it actually had nothing to do with the Matza Meal becoming wet. And that problem was solved by modifying the Matza baked for meal to be baked hard. Best, Meir G. Rabi From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 15:27:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:27:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim Message-ID: In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: shabasos limnucha moadim l'simcha chagim uzmanim l'sason I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are, especially as opposed to the other three. But what precisely distinguishes the other three from each other? My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they the same in regards to Sason? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 12:58:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:58:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> An Areivim exchange... On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:08pm IDT, R `Eli Turkel wrote: > what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:31pm +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes : from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. ... Doesn't this just beg the question? I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 2nd day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Chesed: What is constricted Fax: (270) 514-1507 Chesed? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Apr 25 18:22:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:22:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Areivim, Lisa Liel wrote: >> On Areivim R `Eli Turkel wrote: >>> what is the origin of the story that the lion is king of the beasts >> According to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. > I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's berakhah > of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw > from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? Who says he *did* associate lions with melucha? The pesukim don't make such an association. Unkelus does make that connection, translating "gur aryeh Yehudah" as a prophecy that royalty will come to Yehudah, but even there Rashi explains that this means that a young David will become a mighty king, just as a lion cub becomes a mighty beast. So the lions there are not really a symbol of royalty but of might; and Unkelus's treatment of the rest of the pasuk seems to confirm that. But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. -- 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 Apr 27 00:50:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:50:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <> The best source is RYZA halichot shlomo volume on moadim - Pesach page 350 (shin-mem) He pasjens that (like this year) one can cook kitniyot on friday for shabbat assuming there are people in the neighborhood who eat kitniyot (ie sefardim) and on shabbat one can eat foods that has in them chametz derabban. One should be machmir only on chametz deoraisa. The notes below go into detailed reasons. I didnt see anything about the dishes. but as mentioned he just casually says one can cook the kitniyot. Rav Rimon in his hagadah (ie the last few years) also allows cooking kitniyot for the last shabbat after pesach Though it isnt a sefer the email sent out of ROY's piskei halachot also allow cooking kitniyot on friday for shabbat for ashkenazim again using the reasoning that sefardim can eat the kitniyot on Pesach itself (he quotes the shut of RSZA minchat shlomo tenina end of siman 17). He paskens that it is preferable to use special pots -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 00:56:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:56:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] RMF and gebrocha Message-ID: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebrochts According to Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik of Vitebsk, the custom originated with Dov Ber of Mezeritch .[2] (This appears, for example, in Shulchan Aruch HaRav , c. 1800.) In fact, the members of some nineteenth century Lithuanian Jewish communities deliberately ate gebrochts to demonstrate the permissibility of this practice.[*citation needed *] Both the Vilna Gaon [3] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ruled that there is no reason to avoid eating gebrochts. (no source given) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 05:03:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 08:03:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Changes in Shmoneh Esreh Message-ID: Yesterday, as I was davening mincha, I found myself working hard to keep my eyes in the siddur, lest I make one of the mistakes that I'd have to repeat Shmoneh Esreh for. It occurred to me that in the course of the year, there are many minor changes which are *not* m'akev the tefila, such as Anenu, Al Hanisim, and the constant choice between Sim Shalom and Shalom Rav. But it seems to me that only four of those are so critical that - depending on circumstances - they can be m'akev one's Shmoneh Esreh: Morid Hageshem or omitting it HaMelech Hakadosh vs. HaE-l Hakadosh Tal Umatar Yaaleh V'yavo The chidush that came to me suddenly is that of these four changes, *three* of them apply on Chol Hamoed Pesach. There are three parts of the tefilah that we must get right, because messing up *any* of those three requires us to repeat the Shmoneh Esreh from scratch. This seems to be unique. Is there another part of the year where even two difference changes are me'akev? In Eretz Yisrael, Tal Umatar begins only two weeks after Geshem, but in Chu"l, I don't think there's ever a situation where even two of those apply at the same time. Even on Aseres Y'mei Teshuva, which has six changes (Zachrenu, Mi Kamocha, HaMelech Hakadosh, HaMelech Hamishpat, U'chsov, B'sefer), only one of them is critical. I'm not sure if there is any special significance to all this. I just wanted to point it out in case it might help others pay more attention and not forget the changes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 08:10:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:10:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73622773-BB32-4FA9-B6ED-CFF33EF6C253@optimum.net> RMGR: > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. > I would have thought just the reverse. If there?s a halachic foundation all it requires is a psak. When the behavior is extra-halachic we may require hataras nedarim. David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 09:12:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:12:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:06:02AM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: :> (of MIT) "proves" that an Omniscient Omnipotent Omnibenevolent (OOO) ... :> We can't have a contradiction, so one of our givens must be false. :> (1) is true by definition -- G-d is by definition OOO : This is wrong. Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. I actually : once started a thread here called "What can't God do?". Some examples: : Can God break his own promises? Can God punish people for doing good? : Can God lie? The Moreh discusses both points. 1- Omnipotence is really a statement that nothing lies beyond his Potency than insisting He posesses an infinite amount of power. 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless nonsense clauses. The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : I suspect omnibenevolence is equally incoherent. But Hazal certainly reject it when they say that the world is a shituf of din and hesed. Omnibenevolence is analogous to pure hesed, Why? It would be pure Tov, not Chesed. : Furthermore it is presumptuous to define God. Thus the idea I labeled #1 above from the Moreh, and his via negativa. R' Moshe Taqu infamously takes the opposite approach -- it would be presumptuous to define G-d even to the extent of insisting that we must limit ourselves to defining what He Isn't. RMT therefore insists we must accept the descriptions in Tanakh uncritically. (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, one way or the other.) :> (2) is not really an assumption, but a logical conclusion. (It hides a :> prior formal proof.) A G-d who would know about any evil, doesn't want evil :> to exist and can do anything would have eliminated that evil. : Again, evil is a fuzzy concept. But this is an example of a general : problem with utility functions. People, and possibly, for all I know, : God, : have multidimensional vector valued preferences. Two bundles of goods : may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. : So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God : really want that? Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congential birth defects and other such natural evils. This could be one element in a broader answer. And that was sort of my point... By ignoring the whole subject of theodicy, Dr Haslanger misses the main point she would need to refute. As an aside, a central part of RYBS's hashkafah is that much of free will is choosing between goods that are in dialecitcal tension. More often than a pure good vs evil choice. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? the tragic which :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:05:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:05:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] your son speaks harshly to you, so you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160427170529.GB29457@aishdas.org> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:41:11PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah wrote: : Re the son the Rasha - your son is saying something harsh to you, so you : should also say something harsh to him : : This is not in line with our tradition that a soft response demolishes the : harsh attack. Maybe it's true by definition. A rasha is someone who is beyond listening. And the child ready to hear the soft response isn't a rasha. I saw someone suggest haqheih here is meant in the sense of morbid craving, not blunting. As in Y-mi Shevi'is 4:6 (vilna 12a) "Amar Rabbi Avun: derekh haqeihus okhelin oso". And shinav -- in the sense of veshinantam. In which case, you have the pretty idea: Make him crave his studies. But it doesn't work. "Haqhei es shinav" is an idiom that is used elsewhere by Chazal, such as Sotah 49a (2x). (There is also "anavim qeihos" as unripe or sour grapes in Avos 4:20, but that may just be a third usage.) But since haqhei es shinav is an idiom, maybe the idiomatic meaning is far milder than a literal translation. Like "shut him up". (Edginess of my translation intentional, to relay the aggressiveness implied by the idiom.) :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 10:21:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:21:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> On 04/27/2016 12:12 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > 2- The Rambam believes that logic is a aspact of Truth, and therefore > part of His Essence. And therefore that He cannot do the illogical. > But this is no more a limitation of Omnipotence, in the Rambam's opinion, > any more than His inability to create bloomfargs or any other meaningless > nonsense clauses. > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. CS Lewis agreed with the Rambam. See my .sig Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach bigvul". The purpose of creation, Chabad says, and of all our avodah, is to make Him a "dira batachtonim", which is a logical impossibility. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 13:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : >The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed : >create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. ... : Chabad chassidus agrees with the Ramchal. Hashem is "nimna` hanimna`os", : and "keshem sheyesh Lo koach bevilti ba`al gevul, kach yesh Lo koach : bigvul".... Nowadays there are multiple logics. Some are just mathematical playthings, but many are used in the real world. (The two I somewhat know are fuzzy logic, used in many problems like thermostats, to represent predicates like "hot" which has varying degrees of truth; and quantum logic, used in subatomic physics.) Speaking of non-classical logics , I heard RYBS discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. Because RYBS's topic was how bein hashemashos is actually both days at once. This explains why an esrog used one day is assur BHS because it's the same day and then assur the next day because it was also BHS -- the start of that day. But the notion of noone special logic makes the Rambam's idea that logic is part of Truth and thus of His Essence much harder to support. You would have to go meta, and speak of the usability of various logics in general. :-)||ii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 4th day micha at aishdas.org in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an Fax: (270) 514-1507 imposition on others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Apr 27 14:46:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:46:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name>,<20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> > > Speaking of non-classical logics > , I heard RYBS > discuss bein hashemashos one year in a yarchei kallah shiur in which > he asserted that halakhah is a multivalent logic (one that allows > for values other than true vs false). Frankly I think he meant that > halakhah uses a logic that has no law of contradiction. ---------------------- I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law of the excluded middle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle Moadim lsimcha 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 Apr 27 18:35:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:35:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot Message-ID: I had asked: > Are there actual seforim that discuss this question? I have seen many > publications - usually issued by the hechsherim - which tell us that > kitnios baby food (for example) must be prepared in separate keilim. > But they give no sources. I'd like to see a posek who tackles this > question in writing, and gives his reasoning. Yes! "Medical Halachah for Everyone" [1980, Feldheim] by Abraham S. Abraham MD, page 82, gives a specific procedure for an Ashkenazi who is suffering from diarrhea and needs to eat rice on Pesach, and then writes: > Separate utensils must be used for cooking and eating such foods on Pesach. His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf Hachayim). Then, he discusses at length whether or not a (Ashkenazi) guest needs to worry if his (Sefardi) host used those keilim in the past 24 hours, and several related situations. HOWEVER -- I am shocked by how different this halacha appears in Dr Abraham's book, and in the sefer he cites. I concede that the Kaf Hachayim does cite several problems that the Ashkenazi should be concerned with, and I concede that Dr Abraham's procedure safeguards against them all. But it also conjures up additional problems that the Kaf Hachayim was NOT worried about. Some might say that I am being too hard on a "kitzur sefer" that tries to service the layman by packing a lot of information into a few pages. I say: On the contrary! His book could have been two words shorter if he had left out the words "and eating". If the kli rishon is okay after 24 hours, I would imagine that the kli sheni is okay even sooner. Oh - here's another thing: The Kaf Hachayim was talking about a *healthy* Ashkenazi who eats from Sefardi keilim. I think that if Dr Abraham is going to apply those halachos to an Ashkenazi *choleh*, maybe he should cite a posek on it. Caveat lector! Check the sources whenever you can! Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:20:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > His only source for this is Kaf Hachayim 453:27, which opens with: > > > Regarding keilim which were used for cooking kitniyot, for those who > > follow the issur of kitniyot -- after 24 hours they are allowed. > > He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any > of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf > Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the beginning of the first volume? Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 08:29:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Old Audio Tapes Message-ID: <57581d198d4c45e5863bdf9e300d7dac@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Our shul is getting rid of a large number of old shiurim on audio cassettes and CD's. Does anyone know of any digitization projects that might be interested before they are disposed of? Kol Tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Apr 28 09:26:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:26:59 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] I shall sing to Hashem for He is exalted above the arrogant Message-ID: <1461860967014.47103@stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/gmsnkks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Apr 30 12:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:29:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Matzik l'rabim Message-ID: <5725078F.7070109@zahav.net.il> Rav Asher Weiss discusses a case in which a small number of graves are found in a place that is not designated to be a beit qevarot. This piece of land is slated for a large construction project, which would in all likelihood mean damaging the graves. He discusses various reasons for moving (or not moving) the graves. One of the ideas that he brings up is "matziq et harabim" (damage to the public). He concludes that this reason wouldn't apply here; the claim "matziq et harabim" can be used to permit moving graves only if the graves cause teumah to kohenim. Why would forcing kohenim to take a different path (possibly a very small detour) be sufficient reason to move graves but a major building project not? PS: For a variety of other reasons, RAW permitted moving the graves. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:24:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 19:24:32 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: in response to David Riceman's suggestion - extra-halachic behaviour is likely to require Hatarah whilst those that have a Halachic foundation require a Pesak consider this: if there is no Halachic foundation for a Minhag then it will never require Hatarah, it is an error. The custom to sniff snuff in Shule on Shabbos can never gain status of a Minhag that requires Hatarah if there is some Halachic foundation then notwithstanding it not being recognised as binding Halacha, if it is adopted as a custom it may well require Hatarah if one wishes to abandon the custom Therefore since we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation of there being a risk that wet Matzos may become Chamets, the Minhag of Gebrochts is no different to the Paroches being blue or maroon and suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 08:34:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 11:34:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: I have a question about an Old French word that appears in a Rashi. I hope that someone on the list is fairly fluent in French, or has access to such a person. But first, an introduction... It is not unusual for an English-speaker to refer to Rosh Hashana as the "New Year", or to Yom Kippur as the "Day of Atonement". These are legitimate translations, and it is clear to me that they are used in certain circles. In contrast, the name of Chanuka is generally not translated; it is transliterated or adapted into English as Chanukkah or Hanuka or something similar, but translations like "Festival of Dedication" (and "Festival of Lights", which isn't really a translation at all) are much rarer. But this post is not about those holidays; it is about the one we just completed. I have long thought that the English language was unique, in that we have a translation for the name Pesach, namely "Passover". I concede that although we might perceive of "Passover" as a basic word of simple English, it was actually coined by William Tyndale in the early 1500s, for the specific purpose of translating the root "pesach" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible#Legacy). Be that as it may, it *IS* an easily-understood term for any English-speaker, most especially in the contexts of Shmos 12:11-13: "They will eat the Passover offering... and I will pass over them..." and Shmos 12:27: ?It is the Passover offering, to G-d Who passed over the homes of the Israelites in Egypt..." I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the focus on the experiential story. But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:16:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:16:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the illustration : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in force : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 11:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 20:13:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> On 4/27/2016 7:09 PM, Zev Sero via Areivim wrote: > I don't know on what basis the digests say that you need separate kelim > for kitniyos. The taam of kitniyos that is absorbed into the pot in > which it was cooked is automatically batel. I think it's just recommended > for a heker, so you'll remember not to eat kitniyos yourself, and not > really necessary at all. > And if you know before Pesach that you're going to cook kitniyos for > next Shabbos, you'll leave it out of the chometz cupboard. I read various guides about this Shabbat. To sum up the issues involved: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. 2) Does the eiruv tavshilin cover cooking kitniyot? Since you would be cooking the rice/beans when they are assur to you, maybe teh ET doesn't cover it. However according to Rav Shlomo Zalman, if one lives in a place in which there are Sefardim, the theoretical possibility that a Sefardi person would stop over is enough. 3) Checking the kitniyot: One has to check the kitniyot for chameitz. I personally bought Kitov rice that had been checked twice and only a third check was required. Why they didn't check it a third time, I don't know. 4) Anything cold (eg chummus) isn't a problem at all. 5) Addendum: This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issues. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 02:45:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 12:45:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Simon Montagu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah < >> He cites *five* sources on this, but unfortunately, I cannot decipher any >> of the rashei teivos (which is par for the course, with me and the Kaf >> Hachayim). > What if I told you the Kaf Hachayim has an key to rashei teivot at the > beginning of the first volume? > > Unfortunately it doesn't help much with ZR', which he already gives two > possibilities for, Zera Avraham and Zera Emet, and I've no idea which Zera > Avraham, but PRH is the Pri Hadash, MHRLNH is R. Levi Ibn Habib, and `RH is > the Erech Hashulhan. That's as far as I can go before Hag! Hazon Ovadiah on the Haggada (note 8 on page 55 of the 5739 edition) brings some of the same sources, without so many rashei teivot: Shu"t Zera Emet helek 3 (helek Orah Hayyim siman 48) http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=742&st=&pgnum=122 Hukkat Hapesah siman 453 http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7855&st=&pgnum=172 But as far as I can tell none of the sources are directly addressing the question of an Ashkenazi cooking kitniot in his own house, as opposed to being invited to a Sephardi. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 14:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 17:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: On Areivim, in the thread "kitniyot", R' Ben Waxman wrote: > It doesn't make sense to me that the only holiday in which > the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor has become so > divisive that people would consider not eating with family. My guess is that "the Torah mentions eating with one's neighbor" is a reference to how the Korban Pesach must be eaten. I certainly can't argue with that, but there is much more to this story. The Pesach 5776 issue of YU's "Torah To-Go" has an article titled " Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach" (the url is too long; just google the title and you'll find it) by Rabbi Yona Reiss, who writes: > The late Belzer Rebbe (Rav Aharon Rokeach zt"l) brings a > different source for the custom of not eating in others' > homes on Pesach, noting that only with respect to Shavuot > and Sukkot does the Torah mention the notion of rejoicing > together with others (Devorim 16:11, 16:14), but not with > respect to Pesach. Therefore the scriptural implication > is that on Pesach there may be a basis for parties to > refrain from joining each other for their meals. BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 19:38:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:38:35 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> `On the matter of Gebrochts, R?MG Rabi wrote in Issue 43 > Is it inconceivable that Reb Moshe arranged being Mattir the Neder just to > make the guest feel good? When in fact he really considered that it was not > a Minhag at all and does not require Hatarah. > > RMF called over 2 guys in the yeshiva and had my friend "matir neder" on > the spot and said now you can eat Gebrochts and you may eat at my seder. > and in Issue 44 > May we assert that no matter the number of participants who follow a > custom, the numbers do not make a binding Minhag that requires Hatarah - > as R H Schachter wrote about eating hard Matza. > > May I venture that a Posek who suggests that it does require [or will not > permit] Hatarah is also only protecting broader issues or being polite. A > Posek's opinion is therefore no better than the position taken by Reb > Moshe. What we require is that the matter have some Halachic foundation. > But we have yet to see any practical/Halachic foundation that there is > a risk that Matzos may become Chamets if they become wet. Mori V?Rabbi R? Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to eat soft matzot. The Ramah quotes the minhag that the matzos should be thinner than an etzba ...the soft matzos are thinner just like what color you have on the poroches is not a minhag, it is a matter of taste. Not every little sneeze is considered a minhag. However, if a person descends from chassidishe families and they have a minhag not to eat gebrokts *unless someone should pasken for him that this is a minhag shtus or a minhag b'taus, it would not even help to make a Hatoras nidorim*. Hatoras nidorim for a minhag only works if it is a *personal* minhag. The baal ha'neder has to request from the beis din the ha'tora. *If an entire community has a minhag, you have to get the entire kehilla to be matir the neder. One member of the community cannot be matir the neder on his own*. Just like if a person decides that he does not want to wait six hours between milchig and fleishig, he cannot be matir the neder, *he* is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years ago when the matzohs were much thicker. The concept of dovor sh'bminyan, etc. that even if one lives in a generation when the reason for the takanah no longer applies, the takanah is still binding, only applied to takonos d'rabbonon and *does not apply to minhogim*. The Ramah in his teshuvos writes like this and rashi in the first perek in Beitza writes the same. If I am not mistaken, I think the very last teshuva in Achiezer volume 3 by r. chaim ozer writes the same.? I conclude that we should be much more careful before attempting to extrapolate from Poskim of the enormous stature of Mori V?Rabbi. Dr. Isaac Balbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3561 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 22:01:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:01:51 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Best, Meir G. Rabi On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:24:32PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah > wrote: > : suggesting that it may not be black or bright red or pink [the > illustration > : given by R H Schachter responding to the suggestion that there is in > force > : a Minhag not to eat these days soft Matza during Pesach] > > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza > on Pesach. He just warned about the pragmatics of it being harder for > me to know which Sepharadi posqim are capable of providing a reliable > hekhsher. A position confirmed by other list members. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 1 21:28:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:28:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically. And after the kitniyos were cooked in it the issur is automatically batel; the taam of kitniyos in the walls is surely less than 50%! -- 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 Sun May 1 21:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 00:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5726D8FF.6020709@sero.name> On 05/01/2016 05:48 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I did not see any suggestion of why someone would want to act this > way, or any explanation of how this practice got started. This is > especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. I believe it got started because on Pesach there are so many different standards that it's often difficult to be sure that this is the case. Even if the host has more chumros than the guest, they may be different ones, and there will be something the guest doesn't eat and the host does. Detailed inquiry about these matters may be embarrassing. If the guest is certain that the host's standards are as strict or stricter than his own in all matters, then AFAIK the minhag doesn't apply. -- 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 Mon May 2 03:42:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:42:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: References: <20160502041623.GB26005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160502104240.GB10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:01:51PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote: : > Except that RHS explicitly told me that an Ashkenazi could eat soft matza : > on Pesach.... :> no idea why this is relevant to this discussion Well it doesn't need to be. Topics drift. However, I would ask whether RHS would compare Ashkenazi matzah styles to fashion rather than minhag if he could not prove there was a time when Ashkenazim too used soft matzos. You were using his idea as an example of minhag requiring a halachic foundation, that the risk gebrochts avoids be a real one. I don't see that. (It would also do wonders to qitniyos if that question were admissible.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:48:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:48:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> Message-ID: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:38:35PM +1000, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote: : Mori V'Rabbi R' Hershel Schachter advised me as follows: (emphasis is mine) : "what I said was that there never was a minhag for Ashkenazim not to : eat soft matzot.... : he is not the baal ha'neder. I was told that R.Tuvia Goldstein used to : say that the whole minhag against eating gebrokts only made sense years : ago when the matzohs were much thicker...." Why quote RTG when the Pischei Teshuvah said it first? OTOH, in the same generation, the SA haRav says that gebrochts only makes sense *after* we started counting kneading time toward the 18 min. And as a pragmatic matter, they both were very likely part of the same change in matzah-making norms. (If you have less time to bake matzos now that kneading ate up some of the time, you need thinner matzos.) I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old could the minhag have been? And if so, could RTG's theory be correct even in our day? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:51:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 06:51:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 05:12:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:12:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. I saw somewhere that ein veatlim issur lechatchila doesnt apply to minhagim. Question: can one cook gebrochs on the 7th day of Pesach for the 8th day (for those who dont eat gebrochs 7 days). This was particularly relevant this year when the 8th day was shabbat. --------------------------------- On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 04:52:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:52:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> References: <57264744.20404@zahav.net.il> <5726D781.5070105@sero.name> <20160502105100.GD10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57273F64.2010405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:51 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:28:49AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 05/01/2016 02:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > :> 1) Pots: Yes there are various opinions and customs on whether or > :> not one needs separate pots. One guide said that while it is true > :> that kitniyot are batel b'rov, still one shouldn't batel an issur > :> litchatchila. Therefore, he recommended that if one wants to cook rice > :> for Shabbat, don't cook anything else after using that pot. > > : I don't understand how bitul lechatchila applies here. When you're > : cooking the kitniyos you are not deliberately being mevatel its taste > : in the walls of the pot -- that happens automatically... > > To make explicit what might be the missing detail: Intentionally doing > something that is mevateil issur (or basar bechalav) for valid ulterior > reasons is not considered lekhat-chilah for this discussion. This should be obvious, because if it were not so then it would always be forbidden to cook kitniyos, or anything else that is batel berov, even in keilim designated for this. -- 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 Mon May 2 04:57:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:57:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts In-Reply-To: <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> References: <3819D57A-A377-4A90-BD45-8F6FEB102BB1@balb.in> <20160502104811.GC10206@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572740B0.9050306@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 06:48 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I know I'm repeating myself; it just makes me wonder about the PT's > theory. It is very likely the SA haRav is correct in timing, if not > causality (it could be post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning) because > the Besh"t ate keneidelach and yet chassidim two generations later -- > their generation -- did not. The PT holds it was an old minhag that is > no longer applicable; but given those stories about the Besh"t, how old > could the minhag have been? It wasn't even a generational change. The Alter Rebbe says it was only "these last twenty years or more", i.e. within his own memory. -- 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 Mon May 2 07:02:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 10:02:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-t ech.edu> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> Message-ID: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> At 06:12 AM 5/2/2016, R. Akiva Miller wrote: >BTW: I have cited this article only because it answers (to some degree) a >question that was raised by RBW. Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. To twist the title of the article, Rabbi Reiss may have >legitimized this unfriendly minhag, but I still do not understand it. And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 07:28:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jay F. Shachter via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 08:28:08 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [Avodah] Old French In-Reply-To: from "via Avodah" at May 2, 2016 03:12:46 am Message-ID: <14621956880.190dB.12358@m5.shachter> > I had long thought that English-speakers are uniquely fortunate to > have grown up with this concept as a part of our language. According > to my research, Pesach is called "Pascua" in Spanish, "P?que" in > French, and "Passah" in German. To my ear, all of these seem to be > transliterations and adaptations, much more like Hanuka than > Passover. In my imagination, I always saw a seder in Paris, and when > they got to Rabban Gamliel's Three Things, the leader had to go on > an etymological sidetrack, while his brother in London kept the > focus on the experiential story. > But last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After > explaining the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes > (as translated and explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in > ArtScroll's Rashi on Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for > Passover,] *Pasche*, is an expression of stepping." The French word for "step" is "pas". In Rashi's time the 's' was pronounced. That gives you the first two consonants of the p-s-x root. The third consonant is an aspirate which, although it never drops out in inflected forms like the h does, might still be considered dispensible by an aspirational (sorry, I couldn't resist) etymologist willing to cut corners. It is a bogus albeit tempting etymology, like the ones you see in Hirsch. > A footnote in that edition tells us that this "appears to have been > inserted into the text of Rashi by someone other than Rashi himself", but > that is utterly irrelevant, because no rabbinic authority is needed for the > question I am asking. I could ask my question to any ordinary Jacques: How > do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 years ago? > And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? I can't tell you how the French of Rashi's time referred to Pesax. There are no French translations of the Hebrew Scriptures dating to then. The French Jews probably said "Pesach". That's what Yiddish speakers say today and I have no reason to think that their ancestors did any differently. French Jews nowadays -- who speak, by and large, French, although there are some who speak Arabic among themselves -- also say "Pesach", usually. Sometimes they say "Paque" (circumflex accent on the 'a' deliberately omitted because the Avodah digest software chokes on it, which is unfortunate, because the circumflex, which always indicates a missing 's', would be highly informative if you could see it), which is the correct French word, but it is rare for them to do so. I don't like saying "Paque" because it is also the French word for "Easter" and thus evokes a disagreeable sense of linguistic imperialism, even though the imperialism is almost certainly operating in the other direction here, I would think -- taking a Hirschian risk here, but there are worse people to emulate -- that the French word for "Easter" obviously comes from p-s-x. Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter jay at m5.chicago.il.us http://m5.chicago.il.us "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 03:26:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:26:30 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tenets of faith Message-ID: > (Which is why it is usual to assume that the Raavad is referring to R > Moshe Taqu when he speaks of someone holier than the Rambam who believes > that HQBH has a body. Though I doubt it, because that's not what RMT > actually says. More that he refuses to take a position on the subject, > one way or the other.) Raavad : Born : 1125, Narbonne, France Died : 1198, Vauvert, France R, Moshe ben Chasdai Taku: 1250-1290 CE So Raavad couldn't have referred to R Taku -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 08:18:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:18:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57276FE3.4040104@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 08:12 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. Why does it need to be hefsed merubeh. Mechiras chometz is 100% valid, and everyone is entitled to rely on it no matter how easy it would be not to. If people want to be machmir for themselves that's very nice but they have no right to expect other people to follow their crazy chumros, any more than they follow those of other people. > OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. > Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the > supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? It seems to me that this attitude rests on a fujndamental amhoratzus: the idea that chametz she'avar alav hapesach is an inherent issur, an issur cheftza, so that if you hold for some reason that mechiras chometz is somehow flawed then you must hold that to the same extent the food sold is tainted. But chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a kenas on the owner for deliberately or negligently transgressing Bal Yera'eh Uval Yimatzei. Therefore even if you don't wish to rely on mechiras chametz, and destroy all your own chametz rather than sell it, the shopkeeper is not obligated to share your crazy chumra, and when he sold his chametz you must admit that he did so beheter gamur. If so, he doesn't deserve a kenas, so his chametz remains permitted even to you. -- 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 Mon May 2 10:03:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:03:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X isn't good enough". Ben On 5/2/2016 2:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store > can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are > communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these > contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel > its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:35:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:29 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim Message-ID: R Isaac, Please provide the references for the Shut Ramah and the Rashi in the first Perek Beitza. As for the Achiezer, that quite clearly supports the assertion that ONLY if the practice of not being MeNaker the hind-quarters is associated with a Halacha can it have any sort of binding power. It is truly confounding to see some people asserting the views of various Rabbanim without ever finding it necessary to actually do more than tell a story or tell us that the Posek said "it" to a friend or "it" was heard directly. For example we just had someone quote RHS saying a Halacha from the Rama, which the Rama does NOT say - this seriously undermines the credibility. Neither should we accept the report that RHS Paskened that those who do not eat Gebrochts require a Pesak that it is a Shtus because Hatarah does not work since a community has followed this practice, and the entire kehilla requires Hatarah. That's like an entire Kehilla following the practice of using royal blue for the Paroches. Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation, is a Dovor ShaBeMinyan, is pretty close to fantasy. Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from stories and hearsay from Poskim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 09:53:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:53:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502165329.GE14957@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:29AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed we ought to be much more careful before suggesting Halacha from : stories and hearsay from Poskim. Are you REALLY saying that RIB should not accept an answer he personally received from his own rebbe? Or that we shouldn't accept that he can quote that answer verbatum, albeit with a "(emphasis is mine)"? If that's not sufficient evidence of a person's position, no quote on the list works, and we might as well shut down. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 10:37:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 13:37:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160502173731.GF14957@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:12:10PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can : sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that : don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? Don't buy all chameitz that has been sold, or all chameitz that was "sold" by a store than then proceeded to leave it on the shelves and sell individually over Pesach? The latter is the nearest I've seen in my experience to such communities. After all, it's more ready to conclude that the initial sale of all chameitz was a meaningless asmachta, and not a real sale than it is to conclude the storeowners were selling someone else's merchandise and stealing the profits. But if you mean that people aren't supposed to buy properly sold chameitz, yes that makes no sense -- the storeowner still suffers a hefsed merubah, just days later. In any case, I do not think we still hold that mechiras chameitz requires the hefsed to be merubah. OTOH, it's more than merely a "crazy chumerah", as Zev puts it. According to the Bach (OC 448 "ve'im") mechiras chameitz of the sort where nothing actually is moved to space the nakhri already owns was originally promulgated as a widespread practice specifically for "yayin saraf" dealers, and only because they can't move their full merchandise. (The actual mechanism is in the Tosefta, Pesachim 2:6.) Resisting growth of a heter to include boxes we could just throw into the trunk of our car is quite different than "crazy chumerah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 9th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Gevurah: When is strict justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 most appropriate? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:24:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 20:24:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" mindset). Ben On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus > standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the > would-be guest"? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:03:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:03:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 01:03 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > The contradiction is exactly why some rabbis oppose the > custom/practice of "only buying chameitz that was ground after > Pesach". You can't tell someone "do X" and then the community says "X > isn't good enough". 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how silly you think their reason. 2. As far as I'm concerned the "baked after Pesach" stickers are merely an indication that the product is fresh. -- 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 Mon May 2 12:21:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:21:50 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot In-Reply-To: <57279663.5050102@sero.name> References: <57278870.1090802@zahav.net.il> <57279663.5050102@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727A8CE.4040308@zahav.net.il> From: Eli Turkel via Areivim > The following is probably mostly for Israel MO and based on observations > and not statistics > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article by > a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see below) may apply). The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev Shabbat: 1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). 2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza 3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is practiced). So what is the difference in this case? Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? On 5/2/2016 8:03 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > 1. You can't tell people to buy something they don't want, no matter how > silly you think their reason. Of course you can't. However, community leaders can decide what message to transmit. I heard Rav Amar state in the strongest terms that there is no benefit to buying chameitz products from a non-Jew (instead of from a Jew who sold his chameitz). He also discouraged looking for the "baked after Pesach" label. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 11:05:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:05:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: > > Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! -- 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 Mon May 2 11:21:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:21:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> References: <0802f3e74a344bad85a9564f9ce43871@exchng03.campus.stevens-tech.edu> <0O6J005P7Z0S8WG0@mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <57279B6A.7020002@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57279A8F.5020203@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 02:24 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 5/2/2016 4:02 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: >> And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus >> standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >> would-be guest"? > In some cases it is obvious. We had relatives come over during this > chag. Except for water and potato chips that I bought for them, they > didn't touch any of our food. Later, we went to their place and ate > their food. I know perfectly well that they are more machmir, or at > least more particular in the hekshers that they use than we are > (putting aside the fact that we aren't in the "don't eat out" > mindset). 1. There's a lot more to standards, especially on Pesach, than which hechsherim one trusts. You might trust more hechsherim than your relatives do, but not use some product from *any* hechsher that they do use, or have some practise at home that they don't. 2. If you are indeed sure that you are not more machmir than them, then the custom of not mixing would not apply in that specific case. The minhag is subject to the guest's discretion, not the host's; all it demands of the hosts is not to take offence. -- 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 Mon May 2 11:58:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 04:58:43 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R'MG Rabi has incorrectly assumed that I heard or similar, the words I QUOTED from Mori VRabbi Rav Hershel Schachter. As a rule when I write that it is a quote, it is a quote. I am an academic. In fact, it was an email directly to me verbatim, which I received after Pesach from Mori VRabbi. Again, it is wrong to make suppositions. I did not provide any name in my question to him as that is entirely irrelevant. Regarding your substantive question for the exact sources etc I will ask, however, he is a very busy person effectively also the lone Senior Posek for OU (has Rav Belsky a'h been replaced?) and RIETS as well as his daily shiurim at RIETS and being Rosh Yeshiva and Kollel etc and you will appreciate that his answer to the query may not be immediate. Dr Isaac Balbin From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 13:07:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:07:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RMF Mattir Neder Gebrochts - stories from Poskim In-Reply-To: References: <572796F3.4060405@sero.name> Message-ID: <5727B36A.7000303@sero.name> On 05/02/2016 03:22 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi wrote: > On May 3, 2016 4:05 AM, "Zev Sero" > wrote: >> On 05/02/2016 12:35 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: >>> Suggesting Gebrochts which as we have documented has absolutely no Halachic foundation >> The AR's teshuvah is not a halachic foundation?! > Correct, it's predicated upon factually incorrect information However on being challenged he refused to back this claim up. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 14:41:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 17:41:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can > indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. Zvi Lampel (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) [The attached PDF was identical to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/51283 -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 15:43:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 00:43:39 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? Message-ID: RAM mentioned that: > last week I saw Rashi at the very end of Shemos 12:11. After explaining > the verb p-s-ch to mean skipping and jumping, he writes (as translated and > explained by Rabbi Yisrael Isser Tzvi Herczeg, in ArtScroll's Rashi on > Shemos): "And also [the Old French term for Passover,] *Pasche*, is an > expression of stepping." ... and asked: > How do the French refer to Pesach in their language, now and/or 900 > years ago? And is that word more of a translation, or more of a transliteration? As you yourself wrote earlier in that post, the French call the holiday paques (with an accent circonflexe on the a, but that renders badly on Avodah). It is derived from the Latin, like the Spanish pascua, too. I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke of genius that serves its purpose well. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 22:27:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 01:27:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: <64eee8.a68b9f3.445990cc@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach >....Lest anyone think that I actively endorse >this practice of not eating out on Pesach, let me say this: Rabbi Reiss' >article brought many sources to show that this practice is a legitimate >minhag, not to be disparaged; but I did not see any suggestion of why >someone would want to act this way, or any explanation of how this practice >got started. This is especially so in situations where the kashrus >standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the >would-be guest. ... [--RAM] And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? YL >>>>>> You don't inspect the host's kitchen because you don't eat in his house! That's the point! Chassidim and others have this minhag of "not mishing" on Pesach --" not mixing" our meals with other families. This custom of not eating at other people's houses on Pesach has its source in this, precisely: the desire not to insult anyone, not to embarrass anyone and not to hurt anyone's feelings on this of all holidays, the one holiday when we are all more careful than usual about what we will and will not eat. The "unfriendly" chassidishe minhag has a very friendly corollary, at least in chutz la'aretz where we have two days of yom tov: On the last day of Pesach we /davka/ go out to eat or invite others to our homes and make a point of "mishing." If you don't have anyone over for a meal at least you go out visiting other people's homes in the afternoon, and make a point of eating something there. It's sort of like a sukka hop, you try to visit a few different homes and also host a few different people in your home. At least this was the minhag in my family growing up and among the people I knew in my youth. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 2 23:35:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 02:35:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah >>Two bundles of goods >>may exist without one being fully better or worse than another. >>So, for example, excising evil would also excise free will. Would God >>really want that? [--RDR] Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such natural evils. Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org >>>>> I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Properly speaking "evil" only refers to something that has a moral dimension. The question of "Why does G-d allow evil?" has an obvious answer -- to allow scope for bechira, for free will. That doesn't fully answer the question, of course. We see many cases where He thwarts the nefarious plots of our enemies, which leaves us with aching questions in those cases when He seemingly stands by and does /not/ thwart their plots -- the Holocaust being the most wrenching example. There are a lot of answers but perhaps none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be called evil at all (unless you want to impute evil motives to the Borei c'v!). Rather, here the question is "Why is there suffering in the world?" This is a different question from the question of why does He allow evil people to commit evil deeds. Again there are many different answers, some of which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as well as Divine reasons we can't think of. "Evil" and "suffering" can overlap, as when evil people cause other people to suffer, but they are still two different categories. BTW the idea that a benevolent G-d "couldn't" or "wouldn't" do this or that is an arrogant and ignorant idea, the product of puny human minds. And compared to our Creator, even the most brilliant human mind is puny. Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I did ask Him to take them away. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 04:10:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: I wrote: > This is especially so in situations where the kashrus standards of the > would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest. R' Yitzchok Levine asked: > And how, pray tell, is one to determine how "the kashrus standards of > the would-be host are at least as high as those of the would-be guest"? > > Is one to make an inspection of the host's kitchen and review all of > the products he uses? If so, is this not insulting to the host? #1) In the article cited, much was made of an incident when Rava went to visit Rav Nachman, who was Rava's rebbe, and was thus presumably at least as strict as Rava. (See the article for more information, and for various ways of understanding that gemara.) #2) I, personally, am not very knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of this practice, such as who follows it, or to what extent they follow it. That's whay I can't answer your question by pointing to people who won't even eat in their parents' homes; I have no idea whether or not this practice really goes that far. HOWEVER, I do presume that the author of the article is familiar with these things, and near the beginning of the article, he writes: > perhaps the most intriguing of Pesach stringencies is the widespread > minhag not to eat anyone else's food during the Pesach holiday, even > if the other person keeps their chumros. It seems from this that Rabbi Reiss *is* aware of people who avoid eating other food, even when they do know that their standards have not been otherwise lessened. There can be many ways of knowing this, without "make[ing] an inspection of the host's kitchen and review[ing] all of the products he uses ... insulting to the host", such as when they are close family members, or friends, and/or the host actually invites the guest to examine his products and practices. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 06:43:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 23:43:08 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah Message-ID: The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon are factually correct? Those I have communicated with seem to be incapable or unwilling. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:20:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:20:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:43:08PM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The AR's Teshuvah re Gebrochts is available for all to see. Will someone, : anyone please explain or justify how the assertions it is predicated upon : are factually correct? Which fact are you not sure of: 1- That until a couple of decades before the teshuvah people did not count kneading time toward the kedei hilukh mil, and then people (at least around Easter Europe) did? 2- That rushing the kneading because it now has to fit within the mil along with baking time would increase the chance that there was unkneaded flour on or in the matzah? 3- That the Baal haTanya is brighter than you, and should be second-guessed with care? Even if someone known to be brilliant makes a mistake, you know it's not likely to be a trivial one. 4- Or, the original topic.... That I would find it unlikely that RMF would consider a minhag endorsed by the SA haRav should be dropped without very strong motive? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:28:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:28:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach Message-ID: Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products; e.g, my wife makes mayonnaise for Pesach, although I no longer churn butter, as he did -- yeridas hadoros): I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.. I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no alternative. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 07:40:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:40:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Parlez Vous Old French? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503144014.GA18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:43:39AM +0200, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: : I think that etymologies don't always need to be causative; they can also : be folk etymologies or pseudoetymologies. Rashi, or whoever added that : gloss, found a great vort on French, which allowed him to better convey the : meaning of the verb lifsoach to a French speaking audience. It is a stroke : of genius that serves its purpose well. Much of what gets called "chassidishe Torah" is similar -- it's not a real answer to the question posed, but it is real Torah. Presented in a way that makes a roshem on a listener. As for etymologies, I think there is also a gray area. "Yarmulka" is a term in a number of Slavic languages for whatever cap the locals wore. But if no one had created the folk etymology of "yarei Malka", would the term have become as widespread or as long-lived as it did? Historically, the name Shneiur is from Signor or perhaps Spanish Sen~or, or most likely the original Latin "Senior", which means "Zaqein", with all the implications of sagicity. But I think more Shneiurs today are named for the shnei or of Shabbos licht. Especially since that's why R Aharon and Rn Rivqah Chanah Perel Kotler chose the name for their son, born Friday evening. (BTW, RSK was a dapper looking man in his Chevron days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Kotler#/media/File:Rabbi_Shneur_Kotler.jpg Found it while looking to confirm the story about when he was born.) OTOH, Marche-shvan vs "Mar Cheshvan" has halachic import, and one cannot let the folk etymology cause people to write the wrong thing on a gett; nor to forget that the month names were from galus Bavel, and not related to the Hebrew word "mar". But in general, folk etymologies too have causitive power. (It's just that in my last example, I think we need to resist it.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:09:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:09:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> References: <6565b0.26533664.4459a0ba@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160503150952.GB18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:35:38AM -0400, Rn Toby Katz via Avodah wrote: : Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without : Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents : for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. : : But it only explains the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects : and other such natural evils. : I think these are two different categories -- "evil" and "suffering." Yes, but fixing my misspeech doesn't change my point. To apply the correction: Well yeah, that's a frequently given piece of theodicy. A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in the universe at all. But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. : none that are fully satisfying to us. Ultimately we just have to accept that : we are limited creatures and can never fully fathom His mind. Does that necessarily mean we cannot know His Goals either, or only how they play out in practice? IOW, perhaps we can conclude that HYashem wants a world of hatavah, including being meitiv us with the joy of being able to be meitivim ourselves, without knowing why that means He would choose providing Tov in one case and why He left us on our own in another. : The second category, what you call "natural evils," really should not be : called evil at all... True, but if we correct my language, then the question too needs correction: How is the existence of *suffering* consistent with the Existence of an Omniscient Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent G-d? : which apply to different situations. Atonement for sin and purification of : the soul are just two reasons but there are many others we can think of, as : well as Divine reasons we can't think of. Including free will. For all I know, Hashem lets certain diseases foster because He Wants to give us the opportunity to cure them. That does not address His Choice of victims, though. I suggested four answers to theodicy, keneged arba banim: The chakham doesn't really answer it, he instead asks "How does Hashem want me to respond?" The rasha gets yisurim as punishment. In the Haggadah we tell him that its not the tragedy that is leading him to rejecting G-d its his rejection of G-d that led him to the tragedy. The tam gets yisurim shel ahavah. He didn't do anything wrong, but he is shaken out of the rut that keeps him from trying to be a chakham. And the she'eino yodea' lish'ol gets the life he does because, well, there are times where the thing we want is a greater nisayon, than the situation we find tragic. And if we are not up to the challenge, if its a test that we couldn't pass, G-d doesn't make us face it. I say it better and with more backing at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pesach-5761-the-four-sons-confront-tragedy But my point in my earlier post wasn't whether or not theodicy is answeable, but that the issue of theodicy was simply ignored by the philosophy professor giving the online course I pointed to. Which, in turn, was why I thought that a translation of something R Sherky said to university students (repeated from Twitter) requires more examiunation of the original. To repeat (since I find this topic more useful than trying to answer tzadiq vera lo): : What should a student do when people ask him questions on emunah and : he doesn't have an answer? : RS: Teach your tongue to say "I don't know". That's fine. Afterwards : he needs to search for the answer. : And if he has questions about which he can't find an answer? : RS: Then he should be a kofer, the Rav answered simply. If a student : concludes that the Torah isn't true, why should he remain a : believer? "Can't find"? This professor of philosophy missed a huge theological topic. My guess is that "lo nimtza" was translated overly literally and RYS was replying to questioned for which no answer exists. And yes, someone should be intellectually honest enough to give up his religion if it really were disproven. An impossible hypothetical (we know a Torah-follower's religion won't ever really be disproven, beyond minor misunderstood peratim); so not very meaningful, but not something it would shock me to hear a rav say. : Today my Creator gave me a toothache and a painful flare-up of arthritis. : But He also gave me fresh air to breathe, bright red flowers in my garden, : a beautiful blue sky, food, water, shelter and clothing, a dentist, Advil, : and also wine, coffee and chocolate. I did not want to question whether I : really deserved the chocolate, the coffee and the flowers so I refrained : from asking whether I deserved the toothache and the arthritis, although I : did ask Him to take them away. I said something similar recently about "lir'os es atzmo ke'ilu hu yatza miMitzrayim" . I wrote about how the RBSO put into process even before I was born events that caused my lymphoma to be diagnosed while still in stage 1, BH and ba"h. A rare form of lymphoma that (as of 2010) had only afflicted two other people, both rescue workers who helped look for their comrade's remains in the weeks after 9/11. Here's just the post-script: To be intellectually honest: The story loses some of its impact if you think about Office Ryan and Firefighter Endicott's families, who lost their love ones specifically because they were determined to give other rescue workers' families the closure of being able to make a funeral. On 9/11 itself, for every story retold of someone who was spared being there because they were out doing some mitzvah is a story of someone who seems no less deserving who was killed in the attack. Every life has its own story. I cannot know G-d's calculus in my own, never mind in others'. But the mystery of tzadiq vera lo (why the righteous suffer) doesn't free me from feeling grateful for the good in my life (hakaras hatov) and feeling thankful to the ones -- or in this case the One -- who provide it (hoda'ah). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:14:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:14:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160503151406.GC18204@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:28:43PM +0300, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: : Regarding this minhag (which I inherited from my father z"l, and which : had as a corollary eating virtually no bought products... : I believe we can rest assured that RCB had no doubts about the degree : of the CC's observance of Pesach kashrus. It was just a taken-for-granted : practice that one did not eat out on Pesach, unless there was no : alternative. Which is the only way the minhag could be non-offensive. I am reminded of the rav who establishes a policy not to eat in any mispallel's home, so that no one is offended by their rabbi having to judge their home's kashrus as insufficient. Still, I think it would be elegant if people who have the minhag of misht zikh nisht adopt the minhag of Maimouna. We might not be able to eat together on Pesach, but let's all share the simchas Isru Chag! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 10:08:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 13:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> References: <20160427161251.GA29457@aishdas.org> <5720F506.5040905@sero.name> <20160427201406.GA24057@aishdas.org> <1CAD7973-9B90-463D-8D64-CC8C205F5730@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160503170842.GD18204@aishdas.org> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:46:56PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I heard him say several times that Judaism does not believe in the law : of the excluded middle. : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle However, not only does RYBS's discussion of bein hashemashos really rely on defying the law of contradiction by saying "both" rather than the excluded middle's "something in between", so does his invocation of "almanas isa" and "isa lashon safeiq hu" -- safeiq is a dough. For that matter, the same could be said of erev (although RYBS didn't) -- an irbuvia of day and night. So I think that RYBS actually meant that halakhah had no law of contradiction. Which may be a consequence of allowing middle values between yes and no, I haven't found it spelled out anywhere. BTW, the notion that a tenai needs to be said in both positive and negative is also relevant, as only saying "I promise to do X if Y" is insufficient if Y could be both true and false or somewhere between true and false -- in those cases, whether or not I commit to doing X is ambiguous. Eg "I promise to do X if the next person to enter the room is tall" would lead to a she'eilah if the person walking in is a 5'11" American man (where Google the average is 5'10"). "Tall" is a non-boolean predicate -- a person could be somewhat tall, and not just because it's a matter of opinion, but between there is a gray area about the bottom of the set. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 08:19:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 01:19:27 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: I am seeking the facts that the Teshuvah employs to support a Halachic ruling that Gebrochts is Assur. so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - 1] until a couple of decades beforehand kneading time was not included in the kedei hilukh mil time 2] this reduced production time created a credible risk of flour remaining in the baked Matzah? I am nowhere near the lofty heights of the BaAl HaTanya. But I am commanded, as is all of BNY, to learn and question and as R Ch Voloshiner says [Paskens?] we are not permitted to accept a ruling or a Peshat if there are questions that remain unanswered. It seems that we are having a dispute about RMF arguing with a Minhag endorsed by the SA HaRav. I propose that since Gebrochts is without Halachic foundation, it does not require Hatarah. Others think this is impossible since the SH HaRav endorses Gebrochts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:55:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:55:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Fantasy Requires no Hatarah In-Reply-To: References: <20160503142051.GA13943@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160503185522.GA28828@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 01:19:27AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : so who will tell me if the Teshuvah actually enunciates that - Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 . (Same as when we had this same conversation 3 years ago.) Twenty years is mentioned on 476, the paragraph that beging "Ve'af" -- "...ad shemiqarov zeh esrim shanah o yotseir, nishpatah zehirus zu beYisrael qedoshim, lemaheir me'od me'od belishah..." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 10th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict Fax: (270) 514-1507 judgment bring balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 20:12:11 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Out on Pesach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5728E9FB.8010609@zahav.net.il> A close friend told me that he his uncle (and family) would come to his father's home for seder (in Poland before the war), bring his own food and table cloth, and by doing this was considered to be meiqil. Ben On 5/3/2016 4:28 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > It was just a taken-for-granted practice that one did not eat out on > Pesach, unless there was no alternative. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 09:42:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jonathan Traum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:42:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> Message-ID: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> > Lisa Liel wrote: >>> According to >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_lions it comes >>> from the lion having been a symbol of kingship in the ancient world. On 04/25/2016 03:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> I presume RET is asking -- and if not, I am -- was Yaaqov avinu's >> berakhah >> of Yehudah the first association of lions with melukhah? Or did he draw >> from some pre-existing part of the ancient world? I can't say with any authority what was in Yaakov Avinu's thoughts there, but lion imagery in the ancient world certainly does seem to predate him. On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > ... > But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's > question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves > are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The king of the wild animals is the lion..." Jonathan Traum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 11:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:12:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah Message-ID: In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on the other. Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from joining together for a meal 2) RSZA always took simchat shabbat/yomtov into account in his piskei halacha. A rabbi who is machmir not to allow using a shabbat elevator may be forcing someone who lives on the 30th floor to spend every shabbat without a minyan and without any company and certainly without oneh shabbat. RSZA was an advocate of tzomet because he felt it important to help especially the disadvantaged. Thus, he felt it important to invent a wheelchair good for invalids that can be used on shabbat 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also important even when it relies on DNA evidence. This is just a sampling of many areas where some poskim try and be conservative while RMA insists that just blindly doing the old thing is not necessarily the conservative or macmir way. His favorite analogy is a group of people who live in the tropics and wear swimwear. Because of circumstances they move to a colder area. There now arises a dispute should they continue to wear swimwear because thats what their ancestors wore or do they change to warmer clothing. The change is also meant to be conservative: the ancestors wore clothing that matched the climate and so they should wear clothing that match the clothing. The reformists change clothing simply because they dont care what the ancestors wore -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 13:15:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 16:15:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] lion king In-Reply-To: <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> References: <7defabd1-f1bf-df27-1444-b53bb70428a3@starways.net> <20160425195818.GC11309@aishdas.org> <571EC2DA.9030805@sero.name> <5728D4FD.7080400@traumatic.us> Message-ID: <572906F0.5020105@sero.name> On 05/03/2016 12:42 PM, Jonathan Traum via Avodah wrote: > On 04/25/2016 09:22 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> >But all this is about using lions as a symbol of royalty. RET's >> >question was not about that but about the idea that lions themselves >> >are kings, and that seems to come from a Xian source. > The wikipedia article references Hagigah 13b, which says "???? ?? ??? > ?????? ???" or in the Soncino translation: "For a Master said: The > king of the wild animals is the lion..." Yes, it does now. As the result of this discussion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 3 14:45:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:45:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyot Message-ID: <000801d1a585$16ecdbf0$44c693d0$@kolsassoon.org.uk> RET wrote > 1) A number of RZ rabbis still look for chumrot on kitniyot. I already > mentioned kashering pots used with kitniyot and I just saw an article > by a respected RY not allowing any kitniyot at all this coming shabbat > which is not Pesach in Israel And RBW replied: >RET sent me the article on the subject. The author forbid cooking kitniyot and dried fruit (he doesn't actually address eating something like store bought chummous although some of the reasons he gives (see >below) may apply). >The author gave three reasons for forbidding cooking kitniyot on Erev >Shabbat: >1) Since the minhag of not eating kitniyot is rooted in the psak of the rishonim, we don't say "ho'il" (since a sefardi may drop in, you can cook for yourself). >2) Since these products are forbidden, they're muktza >3) Handling them may bring you to eat them. >Regarding one: Like I quoted, there are poskim who do allow cooking because of ho'il. But I found reasons 2 and 3 harder to understand. >Re #2: Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata rules that treif meat isn't muktza on Shabbat because you can give it to goy. At first I thought that was only in a case where you are likely to give it to a goy, but he also rules that challa tahora is not muktza (when tahara is >practiced). So what is the difference in this case? >Re #3: Really? Is it assur to hande food, period, on a fast day? Of course, this is just a reiteration of the discussion we had last year - here is my post. http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol33/v33n069.shtml#10 The positions cited here appear to be taken directly from the Rav Poelim. See the citation there regarding the issur of handling food on fast days. >Ben Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 06:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos Message-ID: RBen Waxman cited the following: "This morning the local rosh yeshiva (Rav Tawil) also discussed eating chameitz. If a non-Jew were to offer you some chameitz, it is fine. If you sold bread/chameitz before chag, RT basically said that one can rely on Rav Ovadia's opinion that the bread would not be muqtza on Shabbat and therefore it would be permitted to eat, if you can deal with the Pesach keilim issue." Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 05:04:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:04:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] women cutting hair in the omer Message-ID: I just saw that ROY paskens that women are allowed to cut their cut during the sefirah. Does anyone know if this is widely accepted? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 14:43:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher! via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:43:42 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Avoid situations that embarrass In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline. A story that displays a slightly different perspective - the visitor who insisted on drinking his tea in the host's Succah when the host who was not enjoying the best of health was entertaining the guest in his house. The host accompanied his guest explaining to the now uncomfortable guest, I am exempt from the mitzvah of Succah but obligated in the mitzvah of Hachnossas Orchim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 17:47:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:47:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minag avos In-Reply-To: References: <20160415155937.GA31803@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160505004747.GB22983@aishdas.org> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:34:09PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Interesting article to read (I have the PDF) - Joseph Davis - "The : Reception of the Shulchan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish : Identity". Points to correlations between codifications in the "outside : world" and Halacha as well as moving from geographic minhag/identity to : others subunits (e.g. ethnic). I am curious to see that article, because I would have thought the causality was the reverse. The Rama knew of an Ashkenazi mesorah that had numerous differences with Sepharadi pesaq since well before the SA. It was on that basis thyat he was able to categorize the SA as "their" rulings. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 11th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 strict justice? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 04:50:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:50:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: > A world without Nazis is a world of robots, not people. There would > be no moral agents for good to happen to. And thus no real good in > the universe at all. > > But it only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. > Not congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering. I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence not a real good at all. But suppose we leave the world of mussar, where my goal is to grow spiritually by becoming a better person, and improving the relationship between myself and Hashem. Instead, let's focus on getting more social. It's not that I want to improve myself, but that I want to do things that other people will benefit and get pleasure from. In a world where people are busy interacting, but the laws of nature prohibit Nazis, the problem is not that good doesn't *exist*. The problem is that good isn't recognized or appreciated. Everyone is always doing nice things to everyone else, so much so that the beneficiaries don't notice it. Not because they are ungrateful, but because they literally don't notice it -- they have nothing to compare it to. This is how the world runs. What else might one expect? And THAT's why there is "no real good in the universe at all." Ad caan, RMB's reisha. But this only explains suffering that is caused by the evil people do. Evil -- or at least the potential for it -- is necessary so that we can appreciate the good. What about congenital birth defects and other such naturally caused suffering? My first reaction is to give the same answer as above: No one will appreciate good health unless bad health is a possibility. And then I feel ashamed of my insensitivity, my hardheartedness, my callousness. How can I not cry for the babies struggling in pain, just so I can score some points in this discussion? But, truth be told, that insensitivity reared its head many paragraphs ago, when we first contemplated "a world without Nazis". Are the victims of "naturally caused suffering" entitled to more consideration than the victims of Nazi-caused suffering? I don't think so. My heart goes out to both of them, to all of them, and I feel guilty, wondering about where my heart is when I thank G-d for the good He has given me. I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 4 20:02:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 05:02:38 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> On 5/3/2016 8:12 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In a recent shiur Rav Michael Avraham has attacked several chumrot on > the grounds that one is frequently a chumra on one side is a kula on > the other. > > Some examples (mine not necessarily from RMA) > > 1) in out recent discussion of kitniyot. In many cases one can be > machmir about the various questions we have raised and live without > kitniyot for a few days. However, in other cases it may take away from > simchat yomtov especially when it prevents families (or friends) from > joining together for a meal. If the parents of a Sefardi son in law > can provide him with halaq meat 52 weeks out of a year, he can deal > with their rice issue one week a year. I know that I sound like a broken record but . . . We have a long history of chumrot in kashrut and a long history of dealing with them. Kintiyot can be dealth with, halachakly and culinarily, just like almost all of these issues. Having an in law with food allergies is going to present much more of a challenge to a host than having an in law who doesn't eat rice. > > > 4) Several Bnei Brak poskim were machmir in not accepting DNA for most > halachot (siman benoni) even in cases where the scientific evidence is > overwhelming. RMA pointed out that not accepting DNA for paternity > might be depriving a son from his rightful inheritance. Everyone > agrees that in monetary matters there is no chumra/kulah. However RMA > points out that this is true even in many yoreh deah questions as > inheritance rights. Releasing an agunah from her chains is also > important even when it relies on DNA evidence. > For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:08:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:08:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: yom hazikaron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the importance of standing during the siren on yom hazikaron by Rav Stav (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=4174 on aveilut vs chol hamoed during sefira by Rav Cherlow (Hebrew) http://www.ypt.co.il/beit-hamidrash/view.asp?id=5629 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:20:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 18:20:33 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] kitniyos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572B72D1.2030303@zahav.net.il> Rav Tawil was basing himself on a psak given by Rav Ovadia Yosef, tz"l, which is summarized here: http://halachayomit.co.il/he/Default.aspx?HalachaID=3938 KT Ben On 5/4/2016 3:26 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: > ? ? ? Whether or not the bread is muktza, it certainly was not yet > repurchased from the non-Jew who bought it on erev Pesach; and thus, > even if there are no Orach Chaim questions about eating it, it would > seem that there is still a Choshen Mishpat problem. > ? > EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:15:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:15:24 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? Ben _____________________________________________ IMHO DNA is a real Pandora's box which it seems that poskim are taking an approach that to an outsider might be viewed as pragmatic (vs intellectually mandated) by accepting it as a secondary sirgn but not primary so as to specifically not get into the parentage issue. What will happen when everyone's dna/genetic map is available feom a simple stick test? 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 07:24:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:24:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1255?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=96_=EE=F1=E5?= =?windows-1255?b?+OQg4fnh5fIg4Of4IPTx5w==?= Message-ID: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Please see http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160505154013.GF22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 07:50:01AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : I would respectfully offer a different opinion. I am not trying to change : anyone's mind on this -- after all, Pirkei Avos puts these topics : categorically outside our understanding -- but if anyone *wants* their mind : to be changed, perhaps my ideas will be helpful. I am not in your target audience, as I am happy with my current answer and thus probably too closed minded on this question to be influenced, but... : RMB's reisha is full of mussar. It focuses on a person's mind. Is he : free-willed, or is he a robot? If there's no path to choosing evil, then : whatever one does is automatically good by default. Such goodness is not : the sort of good that builds character. It is a worthless good, and hence : not a real good at all... Not my intent. Let me explain what I was trying to say from a different direction. What makes free will possible? The fact that we can think about thinking. Bechira chofshi and being aware of one's own thoughts and feelings (or a subset of them) go hand-in-hand. When we think about and make decisions based on that metacognizent "inputs" we are able to change how we think and truly exercise BC. I think this underlize REED's concept of a nequdas habechirah. It is only at the "battlefront" between two warring desires/drives that BC comes into play because it is only there that the decision happens slow even to occur consciously. You might recall that when we discussed tza'ar baalei chaim (in at least 2 iterations), I suggested that while animals feel pain, they have no "I" about which they could think "I am in pain". Pain, but without a critical element that turns it into true suffering. I gave a neurological argument -- animals lack the part of prefrontal cortext we use to do metacognizance, so why assume they can? Maybe when it comes to animals, the Behaviorists are right. But I also made a hashkafic argument. If a thinking being could be aware of the thinking itself, and think about thinking, it would have free will. Since only people have BC, which in the opinion of many (including the Meshekh Chokhmah) is that very tzelem E-lokim, they can't be self-aware of their thought. Pain as a stimulus away from something, but not "Oy am I in pain!" of true suffering on a human level. So I was making a philosophical point about the goodness. Not that it lacks worth of purpose, but the ability to enjoy good and the ability to make decisions go hand-in-hand. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 08:48:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:48:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kulah In-Reply-To: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> References: <572AB7CE.5070602@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160505154808.GG22983@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:02:38AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be : declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth : it? Mamzeirus is not a good example for a general discussion of chumeros. Kivan denitma nitma. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that we are to ignore most sefeiqos -- safeiq mamzer in a yichus-ly kosher community, or a mamzer in a safeiq community. (See for a nice discussion.) I think it would be assur to check mamzeirus using DNA, except in those few cases where we otherwise are chosheish for the safeiq anyway, like a shetuqi or asufi. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:39:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:39:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim Message-ID: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> H/T Mosaic Magazine See : Bible Odyssey Who Were the Sadducees? by Michael L. Satlow ... The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq, the name of the high priest at the time of King David (1Kings 1:39). Later sources also link the Sadducees to the priesthood (for example, Acts 4:1). However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. In the uproar that ensued, a Sadducee convinced Hyrcanus to abandon the Pharisees for the Sadducees. Whether true or not, this story might point to the Sadducees' origin as a political party allied with the Hasmoneans. Josephus tantalizingly mentions that the Sadducees ascribe authority to Scripture, not to the ancestral traditions handed down by the Pharisees: ... I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion i a dichotomy. Also, what kind of news is in that the Chashmonaim were in league with the Tzeduqim? Regardless of Josephus's story, why wouldn'tthe family that held the power of both Kohein Gadol and Melekh want to deprecate any form of Judaism that would make them share power with the rabbinate? Can the more historically informed please comment if this post is a non-story (which finding it in Mosaic Magazine led me to doubt) or what the chiddush is here? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 12th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 forces the "judge" into submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 09:55:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:55:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Spring_Mesorah_Challenges_=E2=80=93_=D7=9E?= =?utf-8?b?16HXldeo15Qg15HXqdeR15XXoiDXkNeX16gg16TXodeX?= In-Reply-To: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> References: <1462458262048.89170@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <572B7B0D.3050906@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 10:24 AM, Lawrence Levine via Avodah wrote: > Please see > http://tinyurl.com/z5ccs4e 1) Every Ashkenazi siddur says that in summer we say vesein brocho and (in places where it's customary) morid hatol, and in winter we say tal umotor and mashiv horuach. Since we are now saying the former, it is summer, and wishing each other a good summer is therefore appropriate. 2) There is no pressure on anyone to bake a shlissel challah. The blogger is engaging in a fantasy so he can rant about it. Rather, every year we are subjected to ranting from opponents of this custom who can't bear the thought that some people do have it. The blogger has his mesorah, and good on him for adhering to it, but it is irrelevant to the vast majority of us who do not share it. Those who don't have this particular custom of are free not to do it, and nobody will denounce them for it; but they must have the same respect for those who do it, whether because their ancestors did it as far back as anyone knows, or because they heard about it last week and decided it sounded like a nice thing to do. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 10:19:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:19:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <572B80AB.3050808@sero.name> On 05/05/2016 12:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer], unfit for the high priesthood. He was not accused of being a mamzer but a chalal, because his mother had once been kidnapped and was thus unfit to be married a kohen. We don't need to go to Josephus for this story, it's a braisa in Kiddushin 66a. > I think it takes a Xian with their "Render of Caesar" that eventually > led to Separation of Church and State to assume that politics vs religion > is a dichotomy. The article makes the same point: "In antiquity, there was no neat division between politics and religion". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 12:41:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:41:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tzedukim In-Reply-To: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> References: <20160505163941.GA9602@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <520b4de4-831a-8f00-6b0d-1cd935504656@starways.net> On 5/5/2016 7:39 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > See : ... > by Michael L. Satlow ... > ... > The Sadducees' origins are uncertain. A few sources link them to the > Jerusalem priest, with some scholars suggesting that the Greek term > Sadducee is derived from the Hebrew Zadoq... The myth that the Tzedukim got their name from Tzadok the Kohen Gadol has zero basis to it. Except maybe the quote from Acts, which has no weight. The origin of the Tzedukim appears in Avot d'Rabbi Natan, where we find that the eponymous Tzadok was one of the talmidim of Antigonus Ish Socho. > However, the Sadducees first appear in the historical record not > as priests but as a political group. The Jewish historian Josephus > mentions them in the context of John Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean high > priest and ruler of Judah from 135-104 B.C.E. (Antiquities 13.10.5-6). > According to Josephus, a guest at a banquet for the Pharisees accused > Hyrcanus of being a [mamzer]... Also, despite Josephus's claims, the accusation wasn't that he was a mamzer; it was that he was a chalal. The article is a non-story. Lisa [To be fair without bothering to post a full reply for something off-topic: The original had a word I wasn't comfortable repeating on-list, starts with a "b", so I assumed the usual back-translation to the Hebrew. I have no idea what Josephus actually wrote, nor do I expect a Xian to bother explaining chalal rather than use a general term for what used to be called an "illegitimate" child. So I don't know if it's Josephus's claims that's off or a miscommunication caused by my trying to be overly frummy. -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:53:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Sharki on university students Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah I don't know if I've gone off topic or not. I guess my point has been merely to illustrate that there's little or no difference between a world where there are no Nazis, and a world where there are no birth defects. Akiva Miller >>>>> I don't know how you can say that. Admittedly, the Creator apparently wanted a world in which there are both Nazis /and/ birth defects, since that's the world He created. But there is a HUGE difference between the two -- between the pain caused by evil people through their own free will, and the suffering that occurs as the result of disease and other natural causes. One thought experiment will illustrate the difference. Imagine a mother whose child dies as the result of a birth defect. Let's even say the child dies after a period of pain and suffering. Now imagine another mother whose child dies because a Nazi snatched the child from her arms and killed the child in some sadistic way, in front of the mother's eyes. Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 5 13:29:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 06:29:53 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? or within it? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:22:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:22:10 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Eli Turkel wrote: > As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when > there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. > Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF > Every case is judged on its own. I was just an eid to a get of the sort, where certain kullot in the berurei sheimot were accepted because it was such a kind of get lechumra. In other situations, we may be quicker to allow a kitvu uttenu for a civil marriage divorce. As I said, every case is judged on its own. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:42:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:42:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrot Message-ID: In light of the comments of Rabbi Folger and others let me restate my opinion of chumrot. There are several levels of chumrot and kulot 1) The chumrah is personal and doesn't affect anyone else - perfectly OK but one shouldn't gloat or look down on those who don't accept the chumra 2) At the other extreme are things like monetary manners where every chumra for one side is a kula for the other side 3) For things in between one has to compare the chumra to the "price" being paid So for kitniyot - the prohibition is relatively mild but OTOH doing without the specific kitniyot is not a major deal either (in most cases) I personally get annoyed at husbands that won't carry (or push the carriage) even with an eruv but the wife does everything. I am not sure how much the women really volunteer. In any case the hardship is relatively mild (again in most cases) The harder cases are where the prohibition is more severe but the effects are more severe Examples from before include shabbat problems that might prevent one from leaving home every shabbat and ruining on a long term basis oneg shabbat. As Rabbi Folger points out various cases of gittin. Also cases involving DNA or other forms of controversial evidence. The main point R Avraham was making is that rabbis who take a "conservative: stance are not always being machmir since the effect on others may be severe. At times the more innovative approach may be the real conservative way. i.e. it saves the principle of the halacha rather than just some formality which is no longer relevant. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 07:59:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:59:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah Message-ID: RET wrote: > 3) I had a discussion with a rabbi recently about civil marriages. He felt > that in many cases one should be machmir to require a get. I pointed out > that a consequence of such a chumra is to declare many people mamzerim when > they are products of a second civil marriage without a get. This affects > many old Russian familes and also the question of Jewishness of anusim etc. Actually, that simply doesn't reflect the most widespread position on civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 05:34:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:34:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula Message-ID: <> Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one can't accept it in many other cases -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 08:14:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:14:02 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumra and kulah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > < civil marriage, which in reality is that we seek a get even in cases of > divorcing couples that had not had chupa vekiddushin, but, and here is the > key, but we do not seek such a get in cases where it would imply mamzerut. > Of course, the rule isn't applied entirely directly. Rather, every single > case is separately analyzed on its own merits. But we do our utmost to > avoid mamzerut and that does not stand in contradiction with seeking a > proper get in cases of most divorcing civil marriage only couples. > -- > Arie Folger, >> > chumrot that don't have side effects are fine. As Rabbi Folger states we try and avoid mamzerut. The question is when there are no children but one cannot get a "get" for some reason. Do we leave the woman an agunah or do we rely on the psak of RMF -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 6 16:29:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Schlissel Challah Message-ID: <20160506232927.GA27784@aishdas.org> Since everyone has to have a schlissel chalah post... Really I think it is about sources of yeast right after Pesach. There was no starter dough, so people would use beer foam. Beer foam yeast is too acrive for good dough. Fortunately, iron slows down yeast action. A key is a small convenient piece of iron to throw into the mix. But it is common for minhagim to be born from inventing reasons for things people already do. In this case... It relates to the key of rain and finances, described in Taanis 2, one of the three (or two of the four) keys that Hashem never delegates. If so, it is a reminder just as the wheat comes in, and. in the lands Ashkenazim were living in too. (The fresh grass which becomes a milk abundance just on time for Shavuos and Wittesmontag.) A reminder from Whom the spring wealth comes. And to thank Him accordingly, rather than to take credit. If so, ironically (for the naysayers), the custom is all about how wealth comes directly from G-d, not via angels, spiritual mechanisms, or tricks. Do you have a problem with dipping an apple in honey and other such simanei milsa of Rosh haShanah? Those too are symbols. The problem isn't with schlissel chalah. If people observed the custom for the kinds of reasons listed in this post, there would be nothing to object to. The problem I have is that it seems to have caught on beyond the original community because of people having magical thinking, trying to get HQBH to give them their wealth through segulah instead of (rather as inspiration for) the hard and long work of earning reward for being a better Jew. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 13th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 1 week and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Gevurah: To what extent is judgment Fax: (270) 514-1507 necessary for a good relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 14:26:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 00:26:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? Message-ID: I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). Shavua Tov, Hodesh Tov! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 19:49:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <572EA93A.7030509@sero.name> On 05/07/2016 05:26 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > I heard over Shabbat that some people have a chumra never to eat salted butter, but no details why. Has anybody else heard about this and know what the hashash is? I couldn't find anything on line (except to note from Tenuva's site that they have unsalted butter with both rabbanut and mehadrin hashgaha, but salted butter only with rabbanut). I am looking at a block of Tenuva salted butter, which bears the mehadrin hechsher of Tenuva's own rabbi, R Weitman, and also the hechsherim of the OU and Chug Chasam Sofer. I assume Chug Chasam Sofer is a mehadrin-only hechsher. Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk. It's also available in 10g and 200g with the mehadrin hechsher, and also in 10g and 100g with the hechsher of Badatz Edah Hacharedit. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=581 Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk. http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/milk.php?actions=show&id=582 However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to have this problem. http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/salted-butter http://www.tnuvausa.com/fresh-from-the-dairy/try-something-fresh/butter -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 21:35:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 07:35:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > Tenuvah unsalted butter is available in 10g, 100g, and 200g packages > with normal hechsher, because it contains shabbat milk... > > Salted butter seems to be available in Israel only in 200g blocks, and > only with normal hechsher, because of the use of shabbat milk... > > However the butter sold in the USA, both salted and not, doesn't seem to > have this problem.... Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 7 22:00:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 01:00:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> Message-ID: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> On 05/08/2016 12:35 AM, Simon Montagu wrote: > > Thanks for all the info, but I think the question is still open: *why* doesn't Tenuva sell salted butter made without shabbat milk in Israel? In other words, what is cause here and what is effect? Is there some reason why people who only eat Badatz don't eat salted butter anyway, so there's no point in selling it here? Well, I don't see how it can be a halachic issue, since they do sell it with the mehadrin hechsher in the USA, to consumers whose kashrut standards are presumably the same those of Israeli mehadrin consumers. Nor, given the size and internal diversity of the Israeli mehadrin market, and its overlap with the USA one, can it plausibly be attributed to a cultural difference. What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available in 100g packs, in either country. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 8 20:36:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 06:36:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Salted butter? In-Reply-To: <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> References: <572EB1F8.3080405@sero.name> <572EC801.4000704@sero.name> Message-ID: <87b8dde5-91ed-0b4e-3d8f-268d85c4c13f@starways.net> On 5/8/2016 8:00 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > What I'd really like to know is why the salted butter isn't available > in 100g packs, in either country. > The idea of salted butter was originally to be able to sell the butter longer. If the butter has gone off (rancid) a little, salting it hides that. So a lot of people refuse to buy salted butter, figuring that if it's unsalted, they *know* whether it's good or not, and they can always salt it themselves if they want. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 04:36:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:36:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] RavSharki on university students In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< ... Both mothers suffer terrible pain and grief. But even if both children "only" suffered the same amount of pain before dying, you can see that there would be a huge difference between a world in which no disease would ever kill a child and a world in which no Nazi would ever kill a child. >>> The difference that I see, is that in one case the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards Hashem, and in the second case, the mother would have angry or otherwise negative feelings towards both Hashem and the Nazi. But as I understand this conversation, we are discussing theodicy, which is the question of "How can a good God allow such a thing to happen?" And in that regard I see no difference between the two cases. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 10:37:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re: Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160509173704.GA27325@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 05:41:13PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger :> The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can :> indeed create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. : : I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... : where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in : fact it implies the opposite Then why would you think tht was the reference? Pesach 30 is where he discusses zeh le'umas zeh, so mybe they're talking about the implied lack of a law of contradiction? (Ie that creation comes in paradoxical pairs.) YOu are asking for a source for something I have been repeating since before its appearance in Avodah vol 1, something I learne from R' Aryeh Kaplan. Sources, even my notebook from those days, are not at hand. But I'm working on it -- al titya'esh. Actually, I am on the hunt for where I saw the point in seifer haHigayon. The Ramchal defined higayon as a tool the seikhel was given. I am just looking for where I found it explicit that logic was created for people. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 15:52:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:52:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: R' Meir G. Rabi writes: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface > which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." > > May I ask with all due respect - is this factually correct? > > Furthermore, it is clear that the SAHaRav is NOT concerned about flour > WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the kneading specifically. Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:02:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:02:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160510010206.GA9905@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 6:52pm EDT, R Akiva Miller: : I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in the kneading, then : flour would be on the inside as well. If the flour is only on the outside, : I would blame the general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the : kneading specifically. : Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? : I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 2:55pm EDT, I wrote: > Here's the teshuvah we've been discussing: SA haRav, back of Hilkhos > Pesach, tshuvah 6, pg 475-476 > . -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 18:01:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:01:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57313304.90006@sero.name> On 05/09/2016 06:52 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > > Could you please give the siman and se'if where the ShA HaRav writes this? I'd like to see the words inside. Thanks. Teshuvah #6, in the Shu"t at the back of volume 6. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=486 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=25074&pgnum=487 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 9 20:09:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:09:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts Understanding the Issue Message-ID: Many thanks to R' Zev Sero and R' Micha Berger for sending me links to the HebrewBooks.org edition, and at almost the same instant. R' Meir G. Rabi wrote: > The ShA HaRav writes > "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a > little flour on their surface which is a consequence > of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." I responded: > I have trouble visualizing this. If the problem is in > the kneading, then flour would be on the inside as well. > If the flour is only on the outside, I would blame the > general cleanliness and procedures of the bakery, NOT the > kneading specifically. I now suspect that the situation was a bit different than I had imagined. I would like to suggest that the matzos described by the Alter Rebbe had plain flour through and through, as a result of the dough being dry and hard, and difficult to knead, exactly as described. But the Rebbe complained only about the flour on the outside, and I suspect that this is because it presents a bigger halachic problem than the flour on the inside. I first got this feeling in the paragraph "V'hinei eineinu", though I can't point to any specific words where he might have said this. But in the paragraph "V'af d'haMagen Avraham", he is machmir on one who crumbles his matza into the soup, but he is meikil for one who puts matza balls into the soup. What I translated as "matza balls" are, more precisely in his words, "ground matza that they make into rounds (agulim)", and the room for leniency is because it can be judged to be a ta'aroves. I'm going into some detail here, because he is NOT talking about crumbling some matza into a dry bowl, which would contain a mixture of matza meal and flour, and the flour would lose its identity to the matza meal before it ever got wet. No, that's not what he is talking about. He makes explicit reference to these balls which were made previously, and were added to the soup afterward, I am at a loss to explain the advantage of these matza balls over one who crumbles his matza directly into the soup. The only advantage I see is that one who crumbles the matza into his soup is making chometz personally, whereas in the other case the chometz was made in the kitchen when the matza balls were fashioned. (Footnote 45 there might be saying something similar.) Be that as it may, it leads me to a very wild guess that when the dough is not kneaded well, it will have flour on the inside, and although one might think that this flour is subject to chimutz, the truth is that there is some room for leniency because that flour is batel to the matza itself. However, this leniency applies only to the flour inside the matza, and not to the flour on the outer surface of the matza. Again, this paragraph is only a wild guess that I offer to the group. (On a side point, I'd like to ask about the modern "hard (kasheh)" dough that the Alter Rebbe described. Why was it hard? I can understand spending less time kneading it so that it can be rushed into the oven, but the Rebbe seems to feel that the consistency of the dough changed too. Why would anyone think that using less water is a good idea? Kneading a bread dough is hard work, and it seems like common sense to me that if we want to knead it well, you'd use *more* water, not less. Does extra water accelerate the chimutz, independently of the temperature of that water?) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 03:50:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:50:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asked: "On a slightly different matter it is generally assumed that a store can sell its chametz as it is hefsed merubah. OTOH there are communities that don't buy chametz that has been sold. Don't these contradict each other? what good does it do the supermarket to seel its chametz if no one will but it after Pesach?" The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz that was sold to a goy in Israel because none of the hechsherim (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one is checking that it is true. See for example http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X9_D8LFI5O8/UWEoF_JIlgI/AAAAAAAAAc4/XDKyPFsMN7Q/s1600/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%94+%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8+%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.jpg Some people rely on checking product codes which tells them when the product was made. However, this is not that useful. All it says is that the product was made after Pesach. However, every Chometz product has chometz ingredients in it (at least flour which is most probably chometz because it was washed) and the consumer has no way of knowing when the chometz ingredients were made and who owned over them over Pesach. For example even if you only buy cookies that were made after Pesach you have no idea what flour was used. It is very possible/probable that the flour used to make the cookies was chometz and was sold for Pesach. Som people only eat things that were made with flour that was fround after Pesach. However there a problem with this as well. Flour in Israel is very low in gluten and therefore won't rise well unless gluten is added. All bakeries add gluten to the flour in all baked goods. There is no gluten produced in Israel, it is all imported mostly from Germany, France, and China. Gluten by definition is chamtez gamur . Because it needs to be imported gluten must be SOLD to a Goy over Pessach; unless the bakeries want to close shop for a few weeks waiting for a new shipment. Since they start making bread literally a few hours after Pesach is over they must be using gluten that they sold to a goy. Therefore, even if the bread says baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach, the gluten was most definitely sold and therefore you are relying on the sale to a goy. In other words they are pulling the wool over your eyes. They say that it was baked after Pesach from flour that was ground after Pesach but conveniently leave out the bit about gluten that was sold. (source http://www.bhol.co.il/9196/%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.html ) In short, this is a chumra that makes people feel frum but has no basis in halacha and is in fact not really possible to keep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 04:13:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:13:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Understanding an Unfriendly Minhag: Not Eating Message-ID: R' Elazar Teitz wrote: "I heard from an unimpeachable source that R. Chaim Brisker visited the Chafetz Chaim on Pesach. The CC did not offer so much as a cup of tea to his guest, so as not to embarrass RCB by compelling him to decline.." On the other hand there is a famous story (printed in the Brisker Haggada and in HaRav MiBrisk) about the Brisker Rav visiting R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach in Vilna in 1941. The Brisker Rav thought that the sugar in Vilna had Kitniyos mixed in and therefore did not use it on Pesach. However, when the Brisker Rav visited R' Chaim Ozer on Pesach, R' Chaim Ozer served him tea with sugar which the Brisker Rav accepted and drank. Afterwards, someone (his son?) asked him why did he drink the tea with the sugar if there was a chashash of kitniyos in the sugar? He answered that not eating kitniyos is a minhag but being mevaze a talmid chacham is an issur d'oraysa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 08:52:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:52:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating chametz that was sold to a Goy - was RE: kitniyot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573203A1.3050503@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > The fact is that it's actually not really possible not to buy chometz > that was sold to a goy in Israel//because none of the hechsherim > (even the mehadrin one like Eidah Hacharedis, R' Landau, R' Rubin) > hold from this chumra. Therefore there is no supervision as to when > things were baked amd what ingredients were used and the > manufacturers/stores can simply print whatever they want and no one > is checking that it is true. Since it's only a chumra, why not just trust the manufacturer? Most manufacturers are honest, and if you happen to come across one who isn't you haven't really lost anything. In any case, while there are of course those who look for the "baked after Pesach" label for kashrus reasons, I assume that *most* people who look for this label do so as a guarantee of freshness. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 12:20:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 22:20:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:35:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:35:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: References: <3eefb819-0272-aa28-a30a-e9920422520c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9f382b3d9eba7690e3482efc18d4e958@aishdas.org> On 2016-05-10 5:31 pm, H Lampel wrote: > Any luck with this? > > Zvi > On 5/2/2016 5:41 PM, H Lampel wrote: > > Wed, 27 Apr 2016 From: Micha Berger > > The Ramchal says that logic is a nivra, and therefore Hashem can indeed > create round squares and other self-contrdictory things. > > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30. Can you please indicate (I've sent an attachment of the sefer that Avodah cannot see but R. Micha can, and the passage of which he refers he can highlight) where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in fact it implies the opposite. > > Zvi Lampel > (To whom kabbalistic ideas are beyond) The truth is, this machloqes is something I was repeating since R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l was alive. (I mention it in Avodah vol. 1.) And RAK's presentation on logic that made it to print (years before my NCSY days) does not mention the Ramchal's side. Well, it does mention Derekh Hashem 1:1:5 but in the context of one of the paradoxes he's trying to resolve, not about allowing for paradoxes. So I'm trying to dig up an old memory of his stated source. I was thinking of a few places in sefer haHigayon and Derekh Tevunos, which I am still looking for. The Ramchal describes higayon and tevunah as tools Hashem created for a sekhel to use. I thought it was the haqdamah, but since not... The Maharal's model of machloqesin (on Avos 5:17) allows for paradoxes to result when we try to map the supernal Emes to olam hazeh. This point is not THAT relevant, but it's about machloqesin (perhaps only a subset, see end of Be'er 7 which says not every machloqes is eilu va'eilu), and I am writing to the Baal haDynamics. Anyway, it's not really a statement about logic, any more than saying that two shadows of a 3D object can differ and yet both be real shadows. (BTW, the copy of Dynamics in the beis medrash at Yeshiva of Greater Washington is well-worn and due for replacement or rebinding. I was just in the neighborhood for Grandparents' Day at my grandchildren's school.) I did post on-list (to appear in the next digest) that the nearest _pesach _30 gets to denying logic is that "zeh le'umas zeh" denies the law of contradiction. Which doesn't mean Hashem is above logic; it could just mean Hashem's logic isn't the classical one. Which I pointed out in a few halachic examples -- safeiq lashon isah hu appears to mean that a doubt is a coexistence of conflicting states, the need for a tenai to be in both positive and negative, etc... _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 Tue May 10 13:31:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:31:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57324535.7050501@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 03:20 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) They are discussing the buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), obviously, not the bison (Bison bison). Buffalo have been known in Europe and Asia for thousands of years, and have nothing to do with bison. Americans may be in the sloppy habit of calling bison "buffalo", but since neither the Mechaber nor the Rama were American this is irrelevant. Americans also have a fish they call "buffalo", but that's equally irrelevant. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 16:55:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:55:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Areivim] Rav Tal on the state of Israel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20160510235548.GA7880@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:10:45PM +0300, R Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim: > In these days of the yahrzeit of RAL there are many articles about > him. One article says that RAL objected strongly to the above > statements. He questions whether any rabbi has the "email address" > of hashem and knows what is helping or hindering the coming of Moshiach. His rebbe and FIL held a similar opinion. Which is why RYBS suggested to those talmidim who were going to say the Tefillah leShalom haMedinah that they might be able to get adding "shetehei" without arguments from the congregation May our Father who is in heaven bless Israel that it become the beginning of the flowering of our redemption, rather than asserting as a given that Israel is that beginning. R SY Alkalai and R ZH Kalisher, the first RZ (or religious proto-Zionist) voices, certainly did speak in terms of ge'ulah and qibbutz golios in the eschatological sense. However, R' Yitzcvhaq Reines, Mizrachi's founder, as well as R' Shmuel Mohilever were also non-messianic in their Zionism, and yet their Zionism was religious, not in addition to their religion. We've discussed in the past the fact that not all RZism is Messianic Zionism, and in fact amongst RZ gedolim, this opinion might not even have the majority. Depending, of course, on the fruitless exercise of defining who is a gadol. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 17th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate Fax: (270) 514-1507 state of harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:17:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:17:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to India. They did not initiate the discussion - The Be'ar Hagola tracks the source of that halacha to the Agur (Rabbi Yaakov Landau, 15th century) who was quoting Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron of 13th century Trani, Italy. In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water buffalo, an animal that is raised domestically as cattle in parts of Italy. It is from the milk of water buffalo that mozzarella cheese was originally made near Naples, Italy, and in southern Italy it is still used to make "authentic" mozzarella cheese. This would lead one to suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a kosher behamah (domesticated animal) see here for detals: http://www.kashrut.com/articles/buffalo/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 13:38:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:38:21 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. ie from the halachic point of view is it a bigger problem having a memorial day in Nissan; or a simcha day in Iyar. and from a hashkafic view which is more problematic. the latter comes onto violation of 3 Oaths, idea of a 'secular' state in holy land etc . the former only that somehow holocaust is a prelude to a State, and that those who died resisting were somehow more valiant.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: <57327651.5030802@sero.name> On 05/10/2016 04:17 PM, Ari Zivotofsky via Avodah wrote: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, Bubalus bubalis, native to > India. Not "likely". There's not even a hava amina otherwise. > In contemporary Italian the word buffalo is still used to refer to water > buffalo Not just Italian but in pretty much every language, including English. > This would lead one to > suspect that Rabbi Yishaya Ha'achron, and hence also the Shulchan Aruch, > were referring to water buffalo, and they had no doubt that it is a > kosher behamah (domesticated animal) Again, this is not a suspicion, it's a complete certainty, and I'm astonished that it even occurs to anyone to question it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 17:22:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 03:22:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0822d59a-9d49-b752-e005-a309ae78f4c0@starways.net> On 5/10/2016 11:38 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction > these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more > objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. Yom HaShoah is almost certainly more problematic. When the government of Israel asked the rabbis to make a Holocaust remembrance day, they were told that Tisha B'Av and Asara B'Tevet (Yom kiddush klal) covered it, and refused to create a separate day. The Knesset created Yom HaShoah themselves. It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious observances is likely to have a problem with it. Personally, I'm one of them, and while I won't walk down the sidewalk whistling on Yom HaShoah, I don't otherwise pay any attention to the day at all. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 23:56:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:56:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> References: <573241EC.7040105@biu.ac.il> Message-ID: > they are likely referring to water buffalo, *Bubalus bubalis*, native to > India. ... The question is then the halachic status of the American Bison - does it require kisui hadam and can one breed an american bison with cattle (beefalo) -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 10 22:20:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 01:20:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? (Was: Re:, Rav Sharki on university ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Mon, 9 May 2016 13:37:04 -0400 Micha Berger wrote: > Zvi Lampel wrote: > I assume the reference is to Kelach Pischei Chohma 30... >: where Ramchal says Hashem is not bound by logic? I've been told that in >: fact it implies the opposite R. Micha responded: > Then why would you think that was the reference? My answer: Because you wrote so in reply to me previously: > Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:33:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Micha Berger" > Subject: Re: IS THE WORLD GOOD? ... >> ZL: can you direct me to where the Ramchal, too, says this?) > > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See > , where I > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and > Pischei Chokhmah 30. And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 03:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 06:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ramchal: Hashem not bound by logic? In-Reply-To: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> References: <1b8d50bd-e470-84c2-403b-5f0a56f9dc59@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160511100415.GC11561@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:20:03AM -0400, H Lampel wrote: : > He doesn't say this WRT to the nature of halakhah in particular. I : > was quoting his position on logic and theology in general. See : > , where I : > discuss what seems to me to be a machloqes between the Moreh 3:15 and : > Pischei Chokhmah 30. : And I therefore assumed that when you repeated this recently without : citing the source, you still had the same source in mind. Because there we were discussing something about logic and theology in general -- that it has no law of excluded middle. Or in English, the specific rule of paradoxes does not apply to G-d nor the shorashim of creation. And his version of the thesis of zeh le'umas zeh is in pesach 30. (R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) also uses zeh le'umas zeh and the idea that paradox is only prohibited bepo'al, not bemachashavah, to explain eilu va'eilu.) It is also sufficient for this conversation, as it shows that G-d can make a paradox manifest. However, I am still on the hunt for the source of the specific idea I was repeating from R' Aryeh Kaplan, that logic as a whole is a nivra rather than an aspect of Emes. (Work being what it has been the last week and a half, it's a very part time hunt.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 18th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about Fax: (270) 514-1507 balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 04:52:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:52:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel asks: > YD 28:4 discusses a buffalo. What animal are the mechaber and Rama > talking about (American Bison wasn't discovered yet) Google is wonderful. I entered "yoreh deah 28:4", and the third hit brought me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info about who they are) which says: > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) rules that one does not > perform kisuy hadam for a buffalo; this determines it to be a > beheimah. (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been meant. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 08:00:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:00:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] buffalo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160511150044.GE7880@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:52:18AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : me to http://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/shiur.asp?id=9338 (see there for info : about who they are) which says: : : > The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 28:4) ... : > (He is presumably referring to the Asian water buffalo, : > which was domesticated in Southern Europe hundreds of years : > before the Shulchan Aruch.) ... : Later in that paragraph he mentions some other species that might have been : meant. I think that is a list of other species for which the same logic would apply, and not other possible translations of buffalo. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 12:50:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:50:22 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 14:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5733A635.7040108@sero.name> On 05/11/2016 03:50 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile > "On the day that you are redeemed from the exile". Since lechol hade'os that has not yet happened (for instance, nobody has changed the davening to drop all the requests for the redemption, since it's already happened), it follows that hallel should *not* be said. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 23:52:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:52:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: A while back I did a shiur which touched on the efficacy of "Keil Maaleh's". I found one source which said to give tzedakah before making a keil maaleh rather than pledging to do so. This sounded extremely rational; deliver rather than promise. Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? 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 Thu May 12 00:44:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:44:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smartphone on shabbat Message-ID: *Zomet At The Crossroads* *> "Telegramma" - Speaking on a Smartphone on Shabbat */ The Zomet Institute At Zomet Institute we receive many requests on a wide range of subjects. One subject that keeps coming back is: When will you design a cellphone that can be used on Shabbat? This question comes from health and security personnel, who use a special telephone as part of their regular Shabbat routine, and who are looking for a way to use the new devices while keeping desecration of Shabbat to a minimum. We are happy to announce that in the last few weeks Zomet has finished the development of a smartphone "App" that uses a speaking device for Shabbat and where the keys are operated using the principle of "*gramma*" ? indirect action. Touching the screen merely changes the flow of an existing current, and therefore the smartphone can be used when there is a need for it. The " *Telegramma*" App is suitable for use only in cases of dire need, such as for matters related to health, security, or similar situations. The App is suitable for smartphones which operate on Android version 4 or higher, and it operates in conjunction with the Telegramma speaking device. For more details, contact us at www.zomet.org5-6]ssxhjxhhxnngntn/eng. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:31:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:31:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > observances is likely to have a problem with it. She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing shows that in the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 03:42:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:42:50 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic Message-ID: I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with the present discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Keil Maaleh Message-ID: R' Joel Rich asked: <<< Anyone know why the standard practice developed to promise tzedakah rather than give it prior to our request of HKB"H? >>> Here's my guess: What will motivate one to donate beforehand? Emotions run high when the rav gives his Yizkor drasha (or at least, the emotions *ought* to run high). It's hard to get into that frame of mind before the event. This is not like other things where we are sure to prepare in advance, like preparing our matzos or our sukkah. If someone shows up at the Seder without matzos, the ramifications will insure that he will certainly remember next year. But if he arrives at Yizkor (or whenever) and forgot to donate beforehand, he'll simply promise to give after Yom Tov, and this b'dieved eventually became the standard. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 04:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 07:55:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57346F3E.5080102@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 06:42 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic if is greater than b > which is greater than c then a is greater than c (for normal objects > there are strange sets for which this not true) and G-d can't change > this similarly G-d can't create a planar triangle for which the sum > of the angles is not 180 degrees An all powerful deity has nothing to > do with violating logic i repeat that mathematically one create wierd > spaces with different rules of logic but that has nothing to do with > the present discussion That is what logicians say. See the Lewis quote in my .sig. But how do you know that it's true? Chassidus says that G-d *can* make A (which is greater than B, which is greater than C) less than C, if He wants to, because He created logic in the first place, and is not bound by it. Mekom ha'aron is the most famous example. Lewis would undoubtedly say that Chazal's description can't be true, because an object that takes up space can't simultaneously *not* take up any space. An object that has width *must* add to the width of the room in which it lies. But Chazal tell us it didn't. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 11 17:33:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:33:31 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today Message-ID: The ShA HaRav writes "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded ...." It has been noted that if the problem occurs because the dough is not or cannot be thoroughly kneaded, then flour would be on the inside as well. Reading the words of the ShA HaR leaves no room for any doubt - he was definitely not concerned about flour INSIDE the Matza, ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza. This is what he writes, "In truth there is no Halachic problem with Gebrochts, nevertheless those who are strict deserve a blessing. This stringency is not without reason and one who observes it is not acting in a bizarre manner but is in fact concerned to avoid a Torah prohibition [brings a number of authorities] since the flour may not have been thoroughly baked" [because flour that is baked is denatured and cannot ever become Chamets] "As can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly kneaded. Even though the flour INSIDE the Matza is a much more serious problem because it has been protected from the heat of the oven, AND IN OUR CASE THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION ...... " So - back to the Q - is this factually correct? It is clear that the ShAHa is NOT concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza ONLY flour on the surface of the Matza Are those who do not eat Gebrochts concerned about flour WITHIN the Matza? Does any Posek other than the ShA HaRav assert that baked Matza has flour on its surface? and that if so, it is not baked and thereby denatured? Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:35:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:35:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] G-d and logic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512153522.GD9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:42:50AM +0000, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I don't understand how G-d can contradict logic... Because we use logic to understand things. The chisaron is in "understand" not the possibility being discussed. Lemashal, Quantum Logic is very different than the logic we use to think with, and yet, it's still a logic with its own rules. Can you understand how electron X is spin-up or spin-down, and X is spin-left could be true, while the statement electron X is either spin-up and spin-left, or X is spin-down and spin-left might not? And yet, the difference is experimentally provable. Saying that Hashem can violate logic inherently means that some of His Actions are among the non-understandable things about Him. ... : An all powerful deity has nothing to do with violating logic... Nu, so you agree with the Rambam. That "a round triangle" is a nonsense phrase, not describing something that can or cannot be done. Modern studies into logic, which has reveals that there is no one true logical system, have made me more skeptical. OTOH, if Hashem can defy logic, how would we ever be able to use logic to argue the point? Any proof of the position I attributed to the Ramchal and Zev attributes to Chassidus would require ruling out an adherance to logic rather than pro-atively arguing for its defiance. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:22:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512152203.GC9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 06:31:03AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Under the current rules, Yom : Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time.... : While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted : from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which : is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the change from the : Knesset or from the rabanim? The CR's office, in order to reduce chillul Shabbos. IIRC, for a while after the rule change, the RCA advised observing on 5 Iyyar in chu"l anyway, as American O observances wouldn't pose that kind of chilul Shabbos risk. They since changed policy. I suggested that someone may make peace with the fact by noting that having a country where the legal holidays are moved around in order to minimize chillul Shabbos is much of what one is saying Hallel for. But as one blogger put it... When you sit down to learn daf beis, you make a birkhas haTorah but not a siyum. There is what to celebrate in the existence of such a country, but the fact that they need to worry about chilul Shabbos by the masses shows Yom haAtzma'ut is a "birhas haTorah", not a siyum. Or as Rav Dovid Lifshitz put it... There is much to celebrate about YhA. But beyond atzma'ut, the nation needs to find the etzem. The job is only half-done. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 08:08:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 18:08:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99d163da-fad0-a04f-8f8f-a9be47a769e7@starways.net> On 5/12/2016 1:31 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R"n Lisa Liel wrote: > > > It's caught on almost universally, but anyone who doesn't > > think the Knesset ought to be creating quasi-religious > > observances is likely to have a problem with it. > > She wrote this in the context of Yom Hashoah, but I'd like to know > how/whether it might apply to Yom Haatzma'ut. Under the current rules, > Yom Haatzma'ut falls on 5 Iyar less than half the time. (In fact, a > quick glance at Wikipedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Timing > shows that in > the five years from 2013-17, it was *always* on a day other than 5 Iyar.) > > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has > resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) > on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Was the impetus for the > change from the Knesset or from the rabanim? I don't know. I suspect the rabbanut, because they were the ones who established the holiday in the first place, but I don't know for certain. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:06:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:06:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut Message-ID: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah >> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are redeemed at the end of the exile << -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 11:04:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:04:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: <19882.2235ddad.44661f9f@aol.com> From: saul newman via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) in Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 53 >> i wonder if one can consider [for the communities that do not sanction these two days] which of Yom Hashoah and Yom Haatzmaut would be more objectionable, from both a halachic and hashkafic perspective. << >>>> What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. But I will take the occasion to draw your attention to what I have written in the past about Yom Hashoah. This is from Cross-Currents, 2005. (I don't recommend wading through all the comments there though.) http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/05/06/yom-hashoah/ And in 2006, in the comments section to a post by Shira Schmidt [http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/05/04/the-controversy-over-holocaust-falle n-soldiers-terror-victims-memorials/], I wrote this about Yom Atzmaut: --quoting myself-- My mother has cousins ? an elderly couple, not religious ? who lost their only son in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Every year on Yom Hazikaron they cry anew, but they find the abrupt transition to Yom Atzmaut too jarring and cannot find it in themselves to celebrate. The Israeli government tried to set up a neat historical lesson that would take a few weeks each year and go in an orderly progression: 1. Galus Jews go like sheep to the slaughter ? Yom Hashoah 2. In Israel a new Jew is created, the proud Israeli soldier, who is brave and strong. He doesn?t die a helpless victim, he dies a hero, defending his homeland ? Yom Hazikaron 3. All the evil and sorrow of our past is now redeemed with the glorious new day, a proud and strong new young country, the State of Israel ? Yom haAtzmaut. Of course this simple story line has become darkened and more complex with the passage of time. Israel is no longer strong and new and young but weary and battle-scarred. Nowadays Yom Hashoah is commemorated with far more respect for the survivors than was the case in the early days, far more sorrow and far less arrogance and false pride. The Israeli Army is still looked at with pride but more young Israelis try to get out of serving ? a favorite ploy is to feign mental illness. The brave soldiers so lionized in the past are instead looked at today simply as sons and brothers. There is less glory and pride and more sorrow and grief, for all the young lives lost. Nevertheless, of all the institutions of the modern Israeli state, the army is the one most deserving of our respect and gratitude ? in my opinion. Finally, Yom Atzmaut is not looked at, either, the way it was in the past. If you read Yoram Hazony?s book *The Jewish State* ? or look at the soul-searching in the Mizrachi camp after the Gaza withdrawal ? you see that on both ends of the political spectrum, a weariness and wariness have set in, as the State has not lived up to expectations. The Left is in a post-Zionist phase where patriotism and flag-waving are passe and the alleged mistreatment of the Arabs overshadows all else. The Right has seen its messianic expectations dashed and realizes that the State is not yet the Redemption. My mother?s cousins who can?t find it in their hearts to celebrate Yom Atzmaut are not the only ones. Israel needs to rewrite its storyline. -- end of quote -- --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 14:57:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:57:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:06pm RnTK wrote: : From: Eli Turkel via Avodah :> A friend pointed out to me the gemara near the top of Pesachim 95b. :> In discussing that there is no Hallel on Pesach Sheni the gemara brings the :> Pasuk from Yeshayu "Ha-Shir Ye-he Lachem Ke-lel Hitchadesh Chag" Rashi :> explains this to mean that the song (Hallel) will be sung when we are :> redeemed at the end of the exile : Clearly, then, it is not appropriate to say Hallel on Yom Atzmaut. Nor on Chanukah? Besides, what R' Yochananan mishum R' Shim'on ben Yehotzadaq actually says there on that pasuq is that "laylah she'ein mequdash lachag, ein ta'un hallel". Which would also exclude Chanukah. >From context, I would say the gemara is asking why the existence of a holiday qorban in particular is not sufficient to justify Hallel on Pesach Sheini. So RY says, because the night is not muqdash to the qorban hachag. As for Rashi, he is commenting on the quoted pasuq. "The song will be for you -- on the day that you will be redeemed from the galus." "Like in the night which will be santified chag -- like the way you are acustomed to sing on the night which is sanctified chag. And you do not have a nightof chag to demand shirah except the nights of Pesachim, on their eating." Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 12:48:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:48:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Matza, Flour Outside or Inside - Can Anyone Substantiate This Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160512194844.GE9312@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:33:31AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : The ShA HaRav writes : "as can be readily seen, many baked Matzos have a little flour on their : surface which is a consequence of the Matza dough not being thoroughly : kneaded ...." Mimah-nafshakh the AR is speaing about it being a big enough risk to justify a minhag lehachmir, but not to the level of an issur. The AR writes "Be'emes, ki gam she'eino isur gamur bubarur midina, m"m hamachmir tavo alav berakhah." If it was normal for flour to be present on matzos, it would be a risk one would not be allowed to take. And if it was easy to see, no risk would be legitimate -- efshar levareir! We need to understand his empirical claims accordingly. Not a statement about something blatant that someone would notice without even a formal survey. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 19th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote Fax: (270) 514-1507 withdrawal and submission? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 19:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on Yom Haazmaut In-Reply-To: <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> References: <19b19.1ff069d2.4466202a@aol.com> <20160512215732.GA9521@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57351578.1080609@sero.name> On 05/12/2016 05:57 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Rashi is saying that Yeshiah 30:29 promises another holiday in which > Hallel will be said at night. Not a lack of other holidays with Hallel > for lesser reasons, nor even another holiday with Hallel at night before > establishing one to celbrate the complete ge'ulah. I'm pretty sure this does exclude any other night-time hallel. That, after all, is the gemara's point in quoting the pasuk in the first place -- to show that there is only one night on which hallel is said, and therefore it is not said on Pesach Sheni. I also don't see the implication that the future holiday's hallel will be said at night. All the pasuk seems to be saying is that there will be a new yomtov on which you will say hallel, as you do on the night that is sanctified for a chag. Yeshayahu is merely citing an example of an occasion when hallel is said, and could easily have cited a different one instead, but he would have had to be more specific, since there are many days on which hallel is said, and many on which it is not. By citing Pesach night as his example, he can get away with saying, essentially, "like on hallel night", which is not ambiguous because there is only one. From this the gemara learns that there is no hallel on Pesach Sheni. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 16:25:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:25:26 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is worse Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/search/?s=yom+haatzmaut&sort=1 1. the issue of date changing of YH is dealt with in rabbi grunstein's lecture 2. the issue of saying hallel at all , that some provocatively dismiss outright, is dealt with by rabbi zylberman, appropriately in his talk at the Aguda of Passaic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 12 23:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 06:20:53 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt Message-ID: While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which is not the actual anniversary. Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day from the end of the British mandate to avoid chillul shabbat so yom haazmaut was always arranged to avoid chillul shabbat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 07:24:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] May I presently buy Israeli carrots after the recent Shmita year? Message-ID: <1463149425226.74416@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis A. Israeli carrots currently being sold in the U.S. (May 2016) at this point can be assumed to no longer be peiros shevi'is and may be purchased lichatchila. In fact, purchasing Israeli products is commendable as it benefits the Israeli economy. However, if the carrots do not have a reliable kosher certification, one must separate the relevant tithes (Terumos and Ma'aseros). This year is the first year of the shemita cycle. This means that ma'aser sheini must be separated. The ma'aser sheini portion can be redeemed by transferring its kedusha (elevated status) to a coin. Even a nickel may be used, provided the ma'aser sheini portion (approximately 9% of the package of carrots) is worth more than a peruta, approximately 3 or 4 cents. For the procedure to separate Terumah and Maaser, see https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/separating-terumah-and-maaser/. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 08:52:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:52:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) 2 questions. 1. What is the heter to free the kids? (it's a torah prohibition to free them) 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha and kids thru her (eved ivri) He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:07:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:07:54 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] on a role for a 'secular' Israel Message-ID: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/856920/rabbi-moshe-taragin/secular-zionism-for-religious-jews/#.VzVBhX-h6_c.mailto Very good explanation to MTA boys on how to look at the zionist enterprise and how to view it in the scope haskala, brit sinai vs moriah , kiddush hashem etc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:44:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:44:29 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] which is more problematic Message-ID: >>>What is objectionable to me is the slyly provocative tone of this question. ----some people need to ask themselves why asking a halachic question provokes them. maybe the 'slyness' was pointing out that an issur can only be perceived as assur by those who believe said action is assur , not by those who feel act in question is muttar/mitzvah. clearly i couldn't ask why people who commemorate those two days don't realize that it's actually assur.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 10:18:22 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:18:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> Message-ID: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> On 05/13/2016 11:52 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer > who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce > children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular > Jews) > > 2 questions. > > 1. What is the heter to free the kids? > (it's a torah prohibition to free them) It's also prohibited to have relations with a shifcha, but Chazal permitted a mamzer to do so for this purpose. > 2. why bother in the first place. The kids are not related to him, and he > did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them > (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? > parenthetically I would think a similar kasha c be asked on a pasuk. Shemos > 21:5 A Jew who is married to a regular jewess, has relations w a shifcha > and kids thru her (eved ivri) > He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha (I guess his relationship > with his Jewish wife and kids isn't too good) Why do you say that? On the contrary, "veyatz'ah ishto imo" means his wife goes in with him, i.e. lives with him at his owner's expense. And *only* a married eved ivri is allowed a shifcha. The simple and expected case is that he loves and gets along with *both* of his wives, and wants to stay with both. > The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? Again, because she is his wife and they are his children. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:24:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Harry Maryles via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Friday, May 13, 2016 4:39 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > While I personally applaud the lessened chillul Shabbos that has resulted > from this change, I am concerned about saying Hallel (et al) on a day which > is not the actual anniversary. > Actually the original declaration of independence was moved up one day... RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out on. That the Rabbanut moved that day forward or backward to avoid Chilul Shabbos was not significant. The day that Israel was declared a state is the day to say Hallel (and not to say Tachnun). One can review the Halachic sources RAS used in his book 'Logic of the heart, Logic of the Mind'. HM Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:44:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:44:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hallel on yom haamayt In-Reply-To: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <681148281.2020923.1463163848711.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160513184458.GC10043@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 06:24:08PM +0000, Harry Maryles wrote: : RAS said Hallel on 5 Iyar no matter what day of the week it came out : on... Although RAS was niftar before the telecom explosion that caused much of the RCA to shift position. As RGS recently wrote about R/Dr Aaron Levine of Flatbush : In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them Rav Ahron Soloveichik and Rav Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar -- the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel -- regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. Rav Aaron Levine's son, Rav Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time. Initially, Rav Levine followed Rav Soloveichik's ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, Rav Levine's reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma'ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate. RAS might have decided similarly or not had he lived to see the day when the primary intercontinental communication was the telephone, not the aerogram. We can't know. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 20th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 2 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Tifferes: What role does harmony Fax: (270) 514-1507 play in maintaining relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 13 11:54:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 14:54:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <57360C5E.7090809@sero.name> Message-ID: <063701d1ad48$d0e0f7b0$72a2e710$@com> RZS writes ...How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours? You are claiming a tremendous chidush l'halacha - that these are actually his kids. Do you have anyone who says this? It w appear not, bc they are not mityaches acharav (as a proof - we see that they are avodim, and not mamzers) mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 04:46:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 07:46:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> The justification for the shiur of a geris for kesmamim on clothing is that any spot that is a kegeris or less in area could be from a crushed parasite. So the kesem proves nothing. Also (Niddah 58b) points out that they couldn't make a gezeirah that would mean she would never be tahor leba'alah. I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? For comparison: Tosafos (58b, "ukidvarav") say that if she were infested with many ma'akhalos, one could be toleh even a larger kesem on that. We do not hold like Tosafos. The AhS (YD 190:18) pins that on these bugs being loners. They don't scamper in pairs. Multiple crushed lice would make multiple kesamim. Alternatively (se'if 27, in the name of the Rosh se'if 6) lo pelug chakhamim. Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. (A ma'akholes is apparently too common or too unnoticable to warrant needing to know if there was one around.) And the AhS (se'if 31) says that because pishpeshin can't be found where he lives, this din doesn't apply. This is based on Rashi ("R"N") saying "there are places where pishpeshin are found, and in those places..." Would people living in modern settings have to say the same about the ma'akholes? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 22nd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the Fax: (270) 514-1507 situation for the benefit of others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:19:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mike Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:19:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Then there is the that if one can be be toleh on pishpeshin, in which > case the shiur goes up to anything less than a turmos. Literally, > pishpeshin are "finders". Jastrow said these are bedbugs, but I've > unfortunately have seen bedbugs, I doubt they have more capacity than > lice. Also, unlike bedbugs, pishpeshin smell, which is one of the > ways of knowing whether such blame is possible. The bedbugs that I had seen in both the US and Israel are significantly larger than lice, and when filled with blood, hold a lot more. Furthermore, bed bugs have a very distinct odor (at least when there is a significant infestation) that many people can smell. -- Mike Miller Ramat Bet Shemesh From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 05:32:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 08:32:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57386C6F.6070906@sero.name> > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live in a > place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice and whatnot, > that this is a likely alternative explanation. Bedbugs are back, and can strike anywhere, and the first indication of their presence, long before one actually sees them, is the kesamim they leave behind. I wonder if "maacholes" actually means bedbug, but even if it doesn't the same principle applies. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 07:12:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:12:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > I am wondering, how can we today be toleh bema'akholes? BH we live > in a place and time where healthy people are not plagued with lice > and whatnot, that this is a likely alternative explanation. > > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah > didn't include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and > therefore we make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came > from? I've always figured on the second of these two. My reasoning is based on the halachos of where the kesem was found. If we are going to make logical estimates "about where the kesem came from", then we shouldn't care about whether or not the cloth can be mekabel tumah. Who cares about the size of the cloth, or the color of the cloth, or the material of the cloth? But the system was set up such that if the cloth is not m'kabel tumah, then the kesem can't be tamay either. And so too for the size of the kesem. I had a lot of trouble understanding - and even accepting - the above, but when I realized that without hargasha everything becomes d'rabanan, it began to make sense. (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche to set it up however they wanted.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:25:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 16:25:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mazer Message-ID: <> There is a major discussion if one has a child who is a mamzer whether he has fulfilled the mtzvah of pru u-revu or not. Similarly is there a mitzva for a mamazer to marry a mamzerut to have children (see minchat chinuch, har tzvi, kovetz shiurim) BTW I saw an opinion that if a mamzer marries a shifcha and has a child he doesn't fulfil; pru u-revi but he does fulfill le-shevet yezarah see a discussion by RAL on pru urevu vs leshevet yetzirah (Hebrew) http://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D6%B6%D7%91%D6%B6%D7%AA-%D7%90 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 06:43:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:43:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Mordechai Cohen asked: <<< The kids are not related to him, and he did not fulfill pru u'revu thru them (the kids are m'yayachais to the mother, and not to him) >>> My understanding is that if a Jew has relations with a non-Jewess and the resulting children convert to Judaism, he DOES fulfill p'ru uv'vu through them. (Maybe that's only in the case of a non-Jewush man who converts together with his children? I'm not sure.) <<< He decides he wants to 'stay' with his shifcha ... The posuk calls his shifcha and kids as 'ishti and banay' - why? >>> No, it's not the *posuk* who refers to the shifcha and children that way. The posuk is merely quoting the man. It is the man who referred to them that way, and given his love for them, I'd expect nothing less. One might argue that he wrong for feeling that love and/or for expressing it, but that's irrelevant: He does feel that way, and he did verbalize it, and the Torah is merely quoting him. My second answer is more technical. Hebrew has no word for wife. His words could just as easily be translated as "I love my woman", which I presume you'll concede to be accurate. As far as "my children", well, he just wasn't being very clear. He didn't mean "my halachic children", but merely "my genetic children". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:43:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 01:43:44 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? Message-ID: It seems R Micha has erred by not recognising that the risk is NOT about whether there is flour, of course there is flour - as the SAHaR says 'behold we see with our own eyes' that there is flour on the Matza the risk is whether the flour that is certainly there on many Matzos - has been toasted adequately to be denatured and prevented from becoming Chamets when exposed to water. Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. Best, Meir G. Rabi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 08:44:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:44:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57389966.5020706@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 10:12 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > (For comparison, I suppose one might compare it to certain concepts > in Eruvin, which might stretch credulity if hotzaah were a melacha > d'Oraisa. [Tzuras Hapesach: An area is called "enclosed" because it > is surrounded by doorless doorways. Puhleeze!] But since Eruvin only > works where hotzaah is d'rabanan, they pretty much had carte blanche > to set it up however they wanted.) This is not true. Mid'oraisa tzuras hapesach works in a reshus horabim de'oraisa. That one can't fix a r"hr simply by putting up four poles and four strings is mid'rabanan. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 11:45:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> From: M Cohen via Avodah R Tarfon at the end of the 3rd chap of kiddushin gives an eitza for a mamzer who wants to 'purified' - to have relations w a shifcha which will produce children avodim, and then free the children (who will then become regular Jews) Mordechai cohen >>>>> There is no "shifcha" today. But a mamzer can marry a non-Jewish woman and have children with her, and later those children can convert to Judaism. I'm not saying he is halachically allowed to marry a non-Jewish woman but the fact is, if he does so, his children will not be mamzerim. Similarly a kohen who is a challal can avoid having children who are challalim by having children with a non-Jewish woman, and later they can convert and be kosher Jews. True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be cha llalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid the consequences of sin. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 15 16:59:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:59:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> On 05/15/2016 02:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > However my father z'l strongly disapproved of telling people such > eitzos to avoid messing up their kids. I suppose he felt it was > tantamount to telling a man that it's OK to sin because he can avoid > the consequences of sin. That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no reason not to encourage him to do it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 01:32:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:32:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: On 5/16/2016 2:59 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > That is the difference between the scenarios you describe and the one > we're discussing, a mamzer marrying a shifcha. Although that is usually > forbidden, Chazal specifically permitted it for a mamzer, so there's no > reason not to encourage him to do it. Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 02:58:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 05:58:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Gebrochts - Flour on Matza - is it denatured, can it become Chamets? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516095809.GA31988@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 01:43:44AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Indeed R Micha says 'Efshar LeVareir!' it is possible to establish the : facts - and that is precisely what I am asking, because if there no flour : is detected on the Matza - there is no question and no source for Gebrochts. ... only because you're asking about the problem being prevalent enough for gebrochts to be assur. Whereas I am arguing that by context, we know the SAhR's "harbei" means prevalent enough to be worth a chumerah. And that kind of frequency would require a broad survey. Not sure if that qualifies as efshar levareir. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 04:57:37 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:57:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten bam) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 06:18:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:18:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> R' Micha - thanks for the m"makom - still have to look it up. RMB also asked - Are you asking why a man might want to have children other than his chiyuv to do so? Ans. I am aware that a man can (and might want to) raise children not his own. Ie adoption. My question was that R Tarfon seems to imply that his eitza is more than just adopting and raising children not his own. I didn't (and still don't) understand why his eitza is better - they are not mityaches to him in any way. RZS's answer is not true. BTW, thanks to Reb Google, see article on this subject (though it does not extensively deal w/ my questions) [Posted as part of the thread or -micha] Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 10:41:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't > think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah Kamoha) seems to disagree. On 05/16/2016 07:57 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote regarding a shifcha: >> "How do you know that? The Torah says your children from a nochris are not >> yours, but where does it say that your children from a shifcha are not yours?" > The same Gemara (kiddushin 68b) that says that a nochris's children > are not yours says that a shifchas children are hers not yours. The > Gemara there asks vlada k'mossa minalan and the Gemara answers with > the pasuk haisha v'yladeha teeyeh ladoneha. The Gemara then asks > nochris minalan etc. and answers with a different pasuk (lo tischaten > bam) The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) But the proof that your children by a nochris are nochrim like her is from the pasuk that says they are not your children. That pasuk doesn't *say* that they're nochrim, but the gemara deduces that since they have no Jewish parent what else could they be? The pasuk itself is not concerned with their status, since the avera it says they'll do is avoda zara, which is forbidden also to nochrim, and thus if they were your children this would be a matter of concern to you. (Your obligation of chinuch would surely apply to your non-Jewish children, if it were possible for you to have any; you wouldn't have to teach them not to eat treif or break shabbos, but surely you would have to teach them not to serve avoda zara, and thus it should upset you that their mother will teach them to serve it.) By saying that this is not something you should be upset about, the pasuk is telling you that they are not your children, and thus their idolatry and subsequent damnation is none of your business. On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > RZS answer is not true. And your proof is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:14:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 22:14:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: On Monday, May 16, 2016, Zev Sero wrote: > On 05/16/2016 04:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> Rabbi Tarfon wasn't the last word on it in the Gemara, so I don't >> think you're correct about Chazal permitting it. > Actually the last word on it in the Gemara is "Amar Rav Yehuda amar > Shmuel, halacha ker'bbi Tarfon. > The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule accordingly (http://uc2.e6.sl.pt > http://mechon-mamre.org/i/5115.htm#4), though Tosfos (on 68b d"h Vladah > Kamoha) seems to disagree. You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being your children. I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they are your children or not. Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 13:37:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:37:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer Message-ID: <5bc7f3.13131e6f.446b89a5@aol.com> > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone.[--old TK] AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben ben1456 at zahav.net.il >>>>> But I think the son of a challal is a challal, and his son, and his son, forever. And the daughter of a challal cannot marry a kohen. So his granddaughter (son of his son), his great-granddaughter and so on, can never marry kohanim -- at least until so many generations have passed that no one remembers the family are challalim. Whereas if he has a son with a non-Jewish woman that son is not a challal. He's also not a Jew, but he can become one. And the daughter of a ger can marry a kohen. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:13:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 23:13:48 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> Message-ID: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. Ben On 5/15/2016 8:45 PM, via Avodah wrote: > True, a woman who's a convert can't marry a kohen so his daughters > won't be able to marry kohanim. But at least his children won't be > challalim, so they can marry most Jews, and the /children/ of converts > can marry anyone, so his grandchildren can marry anyone. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 12:34:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:34:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <57390D53.4080205@sero.name> <573A0656.8020703@sero.name> Message-ID: <573A20C2.2050400@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 03:14 PM, Marty Bluke wrote: > The gemara there doesn't say that your children by a shifcha are not yours. > The gemara isn't concerned with whose children they are, it's concerned with > their status. It says that your children by a shifcha are avadim like her, > and its proof is from the explicit pasuk that they will be her owner's > property. QED. That doesn't preclude them being your children, e.g. to > exempt your wife from yibbum. (The Tosfos I cited above says they're not, > but it's explicitly discussing it from the rabbanan's POV, not from that > of R Tarfon, which is what we're discussing.) > > You are assuming that the Torah distinguishes between yichus and them being > your children. Neither the pasuk nor the gemara says anything about their yichus. All it discusses is their status. The Pasuk says they belong to their mother's owner, therefore the gemara says they are avadim. There's no chain of logic involved here; the gemara is merely restating the pasuk. That is very unlike the gemara's next case, where the pasuk doesn't directly address the children in question at all, and its indirect statement is that they are not yours, from which the gemara infers that they must be nochrim. > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. > Since the child of a shifcha is an eved they can't be related to you as > a Jew can't be related to a non Jew. 1) Who says a Jew can't be related to a non-Jew? The gemara's order of logic is *not* "they're nochrim, therefore they're not your children", but rather "they're not your children, therefore they're nochrim". 2) Avadim *are* Jews, so who says they can't be related to Jews? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:31:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:31:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 05:13 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > AFAIK a challal can marry a regular Jewish girl. He is forbidden from > other things like truma. OTOH he has no issur of tumah. A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 14:57:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:57:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Moadim Chagim Zmanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516215742.GC21112@aishdas.org> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:27:31PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : In both the Kiddush and Amidah of Yom Tov, we have several phrases: : shabasos limnucha : moadim l'simcha : chagim uzmanim l'sason : : I have a pretty clear understanding of what Shabasos are... : My first guess is that Moadim includes both Yom Tov and also Chol Hamoed, : because they share the mitzvah of simcha, as specified. But then what are : Chagim and Zmanim, and how are they distinct from each other, and are they : the same in regards to Sason? Apparently they are different aspects of the same thing. As in, "Chag haMatzos haZeh, zeman Cheiruseinu." There is a duality between zeman va'eis, as in a beris being be'ito uvizmano. Quoting what I wrote in v15n74: > ... RAKotler has a beautiful vort on the > difference. Beqitzur to the point of omitting the beauty: eis = a > point in the time sequence of a process. (RSRH would probably relate > "eis" to "ad".) Be'ito, when the baby is ready. Zeman = a point in > time according to a scedule. In this case, the morning of day 8 (or > day 9 when a safeiq Shabbos situation arises). I wrote a vort for MmD > on eis, zeman, qeitz, yamim, shanim, and Jewish time in general at > . In that vertl, I suegges that a qeitz is where the zeman and eis for the end coincide. Thus, "miqeitz shenasayim yamim" is when the predetermined number of years in jail were up AND when Yoseif was developmentally ready. Shanim and yamim. Circular time and linear time. A chag is a point in circular time, /ch-v-g/ related to /`-v-g/ to draw a circle. It's a sacred eis. But every chag coincides with a sacred zeman. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 23rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination Fax: (270) 514-1507 stifle others? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 15:02:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:02:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] cooking kitniyot in a peasdik pot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160516220214.GD21112@aishdas.org> I feil to see the problem. Nosein ta'am and bitul beshishim go hand-in-hand. RMF yses this argument in a letter to R' Pinechas Teitz to explain why whiskey can be made in sherry casks; since stam yeinam is batel in only 1:6, there is no problem of ta'am. You would obviously tased a mixture of 6 parts water to one part wine. Since qitniyos are batel berov, why would there be reason to say that a pot can becomes "peasdik"? (To quote a subject line from a month ago.) Are we afraid that the volume of the walls of the pot exceed the volume the pot holds? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 16 22:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:35:23 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> Message-ID: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No issur involved. 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? On 5/16/2016 11:31 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > A Chalal is exactly like a Yisrael, except that his wife and daughters > are chalalos, who cannot marry cohanim, and his sons are are chalalim > like him. Chalalus goes down the male line forever. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:50:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:50:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 03:34:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> For every inheritance case that would be solved, we'd probably be :> declaring someone else to be a mamzer if we accept DNA. Is it worth it? : Which is why no bet din accepts DNA for mamzer cases. Doesn't mean one : can't accept it in many other cases A little more complicated, since discussing chumeros in mamzeirus raises an issue distinct to mamzeirus. "Kivan denitme'ah, nitme'ah" is a gezeiras hakasuv which makdes resolving mamzeirus in many cases beyond chumerah -- altogether needless. Being born of a father other than the husband does not make these people mamzeirim altogether. More than that, the gemara (Qiddushin 71a) continues telling you one SHOULD NOT reveal the families in which mamzeirus is nitme'ah. It is therefore consistent to refuse DNA testing for mamzeirus (in these cases), while believing that DNA testing is in principle halachically valid evidence. Part of a general reluctance to gather eviudence. However, I would think we could use DNA testing to help a shetuqi or asufi, to free him for the shadow of mamzeirus or at least allow him to marry vadai mamzeiros. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 07:54:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:54:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <> Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 08:04:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:04:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] chumrah and kula In-Reply-To: References: <20160517145004.GB8481@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517150411.GD8481@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 05:54:21PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote: : Once one uses a DNA test I assume that one has to use the results. : While a shetuqi or asufi, can't marry at all is it clear that in terms of : yichus this is worse than a mamzer vadai? Exactly. Better to use a DNA test to make a shetuqi or asufi either kosher yichus or a vadai mamzer than leaving him a shetuqi or asifu. So I assume in such cases, we should use the DNA test; either result is better than none. (And it's not a kivan shenitme'ah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 09:26:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:26:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> References: <65c06c.2291c59e.446a1db4@aol.com> <573A380C.7010608@zahav.net.il> <573A3C46.4030701@sero.name> <573AAD9B.8090903@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On 5/17/2016 8:35 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > 1) Wouldn't marrying a Jewess be better than marrying a non-Jew? No > issur involved. But then their sons are challalim. > 2) L'ma'aseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to > marry a cohen has a status of a tzona (other than checking if she is a > convert or divorcee)? Zona, with a zayin. I know one couple who, when they went to get married, were told by their rabbi that she was a virgin. That he didn't want to hear about what she'd done or not done. Granted, she wasn't marrying a kohen, but I guess there's a chazaka. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 12:54:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:54:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:06:44PM +0300, Simon Montagu via Areivim wrote: : Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people whose values contradict : the Torah is not a hillul hashem.... : As RZS has often said here, kiddush hashem does not mean "good PR" And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul hasheim because CH *does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive Peloni. Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. The gemara literally defines qiddush hasheim has good PR. To tweak that first quoted sentence: Lowering esteem of HKBH or the Torah among people because they hold values that contradict the Torah is not a chillul hasheim. That isn't you pushing them away from avodas Hashem, it's them a natural downward spiral. However, lowering that estaeem among people whose values contradict the Torah's for other reasons is NOT "sheyehei sheim shamayim mis'aheiv al yadekha." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:30:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:30:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credi, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > "Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > Peloni. Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a *kiddush* haShem. > Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct value system. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 13:24:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:24:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> References: <05ab01d1ad2f$85ffb150$91ff13f0$@com> <20160513173250.GA23601@aishdas.org> <090e01d1af75$69c975a0$3d5c60e0$@com> Message-ID: <573B7DFB.1050504@sero.name> On 05/16/2016 09:18 AM, M Cohen wrote: > Btw, thanks to reb google, see article on this subject (though it does not > extensively deal w my questions) > > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/mamzerShifcha.pdf Very thorough, but I see one enormous flaw -- the author takes it for granted that slavery is barred by dina demalchusa. This may be true in some countries, e.g. the UK, where the common law has held for centuries that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in, and thus that any slave who sets foot in England automatically becomes free. But it remains to be established that this is the case in all countries, particularly in the USA, where the 13th amendment only bans *involuntary* servitude. I am unaware of any law in the USA that would prevent a person from voluntarily becoming the property of another, and after _Lawrence_ and _Obergefell_ such laws, if they exist, may even be unconstitutional! If so, then the shifcha method could work here. There may well also be other countries where this is the case. And in Israel it might be possible to introduce legislation in the Knesset to explicitly legalise voluntary avdus, with appropriate safeguards to prevent it being abused. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:51:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 00:51:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: RMB: > Or do we say that when they were gozerin on kesamim, the gerzeirah didn't > include a kesem equal to or smaller than a kegeris, and therefore we > make no assumptions at all about where the kesem came from? See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the severity of the laws of taharot. He says that even though that reason no longer applies in our current circumstances, we can't nullify the gezerah of ketamim altogether. But we certainly don't need to extend it beyond the specifications of the original gezerah. So a ketem smaller than a k'gris does not make a woman niddah, even nowadays when such a stain cannot plausibly be attributed to a ma'akolet. Kol tuv, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 14:47:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. : : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. Where does it say that? And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah by how clean some TC's frock is? : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation is not limited to those peers. : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive : >Peloni. : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a : *kiddush* haShem. ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off to Tzeduqim? Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. : : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct : value system. You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such limitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shiur for Kesem today In-Reply-To: References: <20160515114627.GA5607@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160517220836.GA31726@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:51:47AM +0300, Ilana Elzufon wrote: : See Pit'chei Teshuvah 190:10, towards the end, quoting the Chatam Sofer. : Basically, he points out that ketamim are deRabbanan - and what's more, the : reason the Rabbis made the gezerah in the first place was because of the : severity of the laws of taharot... So the CS holds that kegeris is the limit of the gezeirah, and not just part of the general "you can be toleh kesamim on anything plausible". Pishpishin and the shiur of a keturmos (the size of a bean called a "lupine"?) *is* considered part of that general rule. To the extent that the Rambam doesn't give it special mention. Which brings me to the next question... How does the CS know that kegeris and blaming a ma'akholes is different in kind than the rest of the sugya? We could deduce from the Rambam, but that just shifts my question up some centuries. For example, the Yereim says that the shiur is based on the lice of your region, and not the same kegeris (about a nickle) of chazal. Of course (given the above), the CS does say the shiur is a geris, not tied to the size of engourged lice. And does that mean that the Yereim (and the mi'ut of contemporary posqim who hold like him) would say there is no shiur today? BTW, the PT, #12 says besheim the Raavad that there is no shiur if the kesem is black, since a ma'akheles stain would always be rad. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:08:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:08:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> On 05/17/2016 05:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote: > : On 05/17/2016 03:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >And as I repeatedly responded, untrue. A talmid chakham with dirty > : >clothes (or Rav buying his meat on credit, Yuma 86a) poses a chilul > : >hasheim because CH*does* mean "bad PR", vekhein lehefekh -- a qiddush > : >hasheim is something that draws others to avodas Hashem. > : > : Only among those whose values match those of the Torah. > > Where does it say that? It's completely obvious, and doesn't need saying. It simply can't be otherwise. > And who has values that match the Torah's who would judge the Torah > by how clean some TC's frock is? Apparently so. Otherwise what guide do you have? Why do you assume pagans esteem cleanliness, when for every one that does so there's probably another who esteems filth and despises cleanliness? > : >Later in that same sugya in Yuma, Yitzchaq od R' Yannai's BM says, > : >"Anyone whose peers are embarassed of his reputation is a chilul hasheim, > > : Emphasis on "his peers". Those who hold the same values. > > The reputation that causes the embarassment is the CH. And the reputation > is not limited to those peers. But non-peers may well think highly of him for it. Think of the "game" community that has formed online in the last 20 years, and what sort of traits they admire and despise in a person. A reputation that would embarass a t"ch's peers would be lionised in those circles. > : >and R' Nachman bar Yitzchaq, such as if people say, "May the L-rd forgive > : >Peloni. > > : Again we see that we are talking only about those who believe in Hashem and > : His value system. If people say "may Baal forgive Peloni", that is a > : *kiddush* haShem. > > ??? Every monotheist follows the Torah? What if his behavior is a turn-off > to Tzeduqim? Then it's a good bet that it's a kiddush haShem. > Besides, who said the person's master / lord is ours? Other than my > capitalization and hyphen, that's not a compelled reading. Actually the gemara's lashon is may *his* Lord forgive him. But it's obviously being said by people who know what Hashem's standards are. > : >Abayei then says this is like the beraisa on the pasuq "ve'ahavta > : >es H' Elokekha" -- that sheim shamayim should be beloved because of you. > : > : It should be obvious that this is only among those who have a correct > : value system. > > You're inserting your conclusion into a sentence that has no such > limitation. It *has* to have it, because we have voluminous *evidence* of what KH/CH is, and it's emphatically *not* that sheim shomayim should be beloved by those "who call bad good and good bad, who establish darkness as light and light as darkness, bitter as sweet and sweet as bitter". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 17 15:57:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> References: <20160517195400.GA31272@aishdas.org> <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> Who is the audience to chilul hasheim in Yesodei haTorah 5:11? "Haberios". Ad sheyimtz'u HAKOL meqlsin oso, ve'ohavim oso, umis'avim lema'asav. Harei zeh qideish as hasheim... "Hakol" is all who? Not all the berios, since that's all he (repeatedly) describes as the observers? -micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:35:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:35:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish Message-ID: A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels that there is no health problem can eat the two together -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:32:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:32:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: <> RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea of shifcha today is ridiculous -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 02:28:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:28:50 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: > I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they > are your children or not. Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 05:28:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mordechai Harris via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:28:19 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735391/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/eating-fish-and-meat-together/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 04:10:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:10:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573C4DA9.9060307@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 05:28 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they >> are your children or not. > > Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. >> > > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between parents and child What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Of course marriage is an occasion when one is *interested* in yichus, just as one is interested in health, character, and all kinds of other things; would you say that "health refers to marrriage, and might have nothing to do with topics like strength, diet, medical treatment, or life expectancy"?! -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 07:27:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:27:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> RBW asked.. L'maaseh, does anyone today check to see if a woman wanting to marry a cohen has a status of a zona (other than checking if she is a convert or divorcee)? Ans. Yes, all BT girls are asked 'as discreetly as possible' if they are mutar to a cohen or not when in the shidduch parsha. (bc rov are not eligible) L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must look towards FFB shidduchim This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they bring it up otherwise) Some stats: The average age Americans lose their virginities is 17.1 for both men and women The CDC also reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females aged 20 to 24. That number drops below 5 percent aged 25 to 29 Statistically, if you didn't have sex in your teen years, you're in the minority. The interesting/disturbing problem is that many (rov?) BT cohens are not probably not cohens. (and actually w be mutar to a zona, mutar l'tamai l'masim, etc) If the BT cohens mother grew up post 1960s/70s/80s or so (and became BT post high school), it's probably a chazakah that she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. It's unlikely that the BT boy is willing to ask his mother if she was m'zaneh with a goy before marriage to the BTs father. (and even if she says she wasn't, is she be believed against the chazaka?) I personally heard from a major chareidi posek that for this reason a cohen s l'chatchila not go out w a BT cohens daughter, if the parents were married before they became frum and she was a teenager post 1960s/70s/80s or so (bc of the possibility that she is actually the daughter of a chalalah who was forbidden to marry her father) As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 09:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:28pm IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: :> I don't think there is such a distinction. Yichus determines whether they :> are your children or not. : :> Well, yes, that's what yichus *is*. : : Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage... I assume you mean: Yichus refers to a persons lineage WRT whom they and their descendents may marry. Do I understand correctly? : It might have nothing to do : with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections between : parents and child. Is there a source for making such a chiluq, or are you just posing a hava amina for discusion. I was told lehalkhah ulemasseh that an adoptive child's honoring his parents is a qiyum of kavod harav, not kibud av va'eim. So for KAvA, some kind of genetic parentage is involved. At 12:32pm IDT, RET continued (on a second aspect of the discussion): : RYBS is well to have said that Lincoln freed the slaves and the whole idea : of shifcha today is ridiculous I would like to have the grapevine confirmed on this one. But in any case... When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and shevuyim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:02:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:02:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> Message-ID: <573CA023.104@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 10:27 AM, M Cohen wrote: > L'maaseh, today a cohen basically cannot marry almost all BT girls, and must > look towards FFB shidduchim > > This 'fact of life' is common knowledge among BT kallah teachers. > > At this pt, we do assume that FFB girls are mutar to a cohen (unless they > bring it up otherwise) But what about chalalos? An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married. Who keeps track of that, let alone after several generations? > As the time line moves forward, it's hard to understand why BT cohens > are considered cohenim and allowed to do birkas cohanim etc Not just BTs, as I pointed out above. And indeed many poskim do say that this is why our cohanim only duchen on yomtov; since they have no yichus, and can't know whether they're really entitled to duchen, they should avoid doing so except when it would be blatantly obvious, and would thus cause a pegam on their family. (This is a based on a gemara that a safek cohen would collect terumah only once a year, to keep up his name.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:10:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:10:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to 'fix' a mamzer In-Reply-To: <573CA023.104@sero.name> References: <0cc701d1b111$6bdf1f00$439d5d00$@com> <573CA023.104@sero.name> Message-ID: <0dcd01d1b128$28a623c0$79f26b40$@com> RZS wrote ..An FFB girl may very well be a chalalah because her great-grandfather was a cohen, and her great-grandmother was someone he shouldn't have married.. Ans. But these FFB girls DO have a chezkas kashrus. My point was that todays female BTs, and male BTs descended from cohanim don't have that chazaka anymore Mc ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:01:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:01:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:35:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : A friend of mine said he listen to a shiur of Rav Herschel Schacter on : yutorah and he noted that the Rambam doesn;t mention anything about not : eating meat and fish together. Therefore, RHS pakened that anyone who feels : that there is no health problem can eat the two together In terms of acharonim, it's the Yad Efraim (#116) CS (shu"t #101) prohibiting and the MA (OC 173) permitting. The MA says nishtanah hateva. The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which we don't eat anymore. 2- The Rambam omits it as he does any other piece of medical advice that doesn't work. According to R' Avraham b haRambam, nishtanah hateva means the scientific theory has changed. WHch would make this idea a paralel to the MA's reasoning. The YE lists numerous posqim who prohibit, appealing to authority rather than giving a sevara But I think there is more to the story than included in this report. It's non-trivial to tell people -- especially Ashkenazim -- to follow the Rambam against both the SA (including the Rama) and commonly accepted practice. I am not questioning the conclusion, I just think we are missing critical pieces of the argument. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 10:35:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:35:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518165133.GB6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573CA7CB.5070500@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 12:51 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > When slavery is illegal, what's the halachic line between avadim and > shevuyim? That's discussed at length in the article that was forwarded. Basically since avdus is a matter of dinei momonos it would seem to depend on dina demalchusa. But my question is on the metzius in the USA; I question the assumption that voluntary slavery is illegal here. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 11:36:41 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:36:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush hashem via issur In-Reply-To: <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> References: <573B7F6F.6000801@sero.name> <20160517214757.GC31272@aishdas.org> <573B9667.6080103@sero.name> <20160517225758.GC11590@aishdas.org> <573BA37C.9070402@sero.name> <20160518174122.GE6953@aishdas.org> <573CAB65.1060509@sero.name> <2e7c1df5b9ef9931f5bc64b483eaeff8@aishdas.org> <573CAD8E.2030905@sero.name> <7e683c10f35b9ad4b101a794e3494b20@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160518183641.GA3694@aishdas.org> Two more examples of qiddush hasheim being about behavior in front of anyone. 1- Geneivas aku"m through circumvention is a lack of qiddush hasheim (R' Aqiva, BQ 113a) 2- Orechos Tzadiqim, sha'ar haEmes, calls getting the nations to say "Berikh E-lohehon diYhuda'i!" to be a qidush hasheim. The example is from Shimon ben Shetach requiring his talmidim to return a gem to a Yishmaeli when it was lifnim mishuras hadin. (TY BM 2:5, vilna 8a) (Recall this is pre-Islam, the Yishmaeli was aku"m.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 01:26:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:26:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or even leaves the family. One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive family and biology contributes nothing. Though not the topic of the shiur if the mother is a shifcha or a nonJew the father (who stays with the family) is entitled to all rights of a father including kibud Av independent of any halachot of yichus. He is not worse than an adoptive parent (my conclusion not discussed in the shiur) The only exception to this rule is sitting shiva. One is required to sit shiva for the biological father and may sit shiva for the adoptive father. When questioned he explained that not sitting shiva for a father even if he did nothing for the family might hint of mamzerut -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 18 21:32:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Adar Jacob via Avodah) Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:32:58 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 02:59:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 05:59:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160519095946.GD26914@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Adar Jacob wrote: : As I recall, maybe about 20 years ago, talmiday hachamim were bruiting : it about that we should NOT check individuals but assume botel b'rov : for immigrants to Israel or any group of Jews. This isn't an issue of rov. There is a gezeiras hakasuv that kivan shenitma, nitma -- a family in which the mamzeirus got forgotten must be left that way. One is *prohibited* against digging up lost claims of mamzeirus. I think of it in similar terms to how an afflicted person isn't a metzorah until the kohein says so. Here too, the biological parentage is the primary factor in determining mamzeirus, but apparently not the only one. We must also be aware of that parentage. And if hot, the person isn't halachically a mamzer and we wrong him by finding out his biological state and making him subject to the strictures. It is only a foundling (asufi) or someone who can't identify who his father is (shetuqi) who are *derabbanan* held under doubt. (De'oraisa, only a definite mamzer is assur.) Not cases of needing to dig up history of people who think they're kosher. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 26th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking Fax: (270) 514-1507 control just a way of abandoning one's self? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:15:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:15:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meat and fish In-Reply-To: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> References: <20160518170120.GC6953@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <573DA051.10607@sero.name> On 05/18/2016 01:01 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The CS suggests explanations for the Rambam, including > > 1- The gemara was only concerned about a specific breed of fish which > we don't eat anymore. Or perhaps we (i.e. middle Europeans) *do* eat this species but the Rambam (in Egypt) didn't and was unaware of it. I know the two Aris have identified it as a species that exists only in the Euphrates, and thus is eaten only in Turkey and Iraq, but that's not information the CS could have had. It could just as easily have been a species that also lives in the Danube, but not in the Nile or the Mediterranean. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:12:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:12:44 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Death Message-ID: <1463667145403.74543@stevens.edu> The following is from RSRH's commentary on Vayikra 21:5 They shall not make a bald spot on their head, nor shall they shaveoff the corners of their beard and they shall not make a wound in their flesh. Heathenism, both ancient and modern, tends to associate religion with death. The kingdom of God begins only where man ends. Death and dying are the main manifestations of divinity. For, in the heathen view, the deity is a god of death, not of life; a god who kills and never revives, who sends death and its harbingers - sickness and poverty - so that men, mindful of his power and their own helplessness, should fear him. For this reason heathen temples stand beside graves, and the foremost place of heathen priests is beside a corpse. There, where the eyes are dimmed and the heart is broken, they find fertile soil for the dissemination of their religion. He who bears on his flesh a mark of death - a symbol of death's power to conquer all - and thus remains ever mindful of death, performs the religious act par excellence, and this especially befits a priest and his office. Not so are the priests in Judaism, because not so is the Jewish concept of God and not so is the Jewish religion. God, Who instructs the Kohein regarding his position in Israel, is a God of life. The most exalted manifestation of God is not in the power of death, which crushes strength and life. Rather, God reveals Himself in the liberating and vitalizing power of life, which elevates man to free will and eternal life. Judaism teaches us not how to die but how to live, so that even in life we may overcome death, an unfree existence, enslavement to physical things, and moral weakness. Judaism teaches us how to live every moment of earthly life as a moment of eternal life in the service of God; how thus to live every moment of a life marked by moral freedom, a life of thought and will, creativity and achievement, and also pleasure. This is the teaching to which God has dedicated His Sanctuary and for whose service He has consecrated the Kohanim, who teach the people the "basis and direction of life" __________________________________________________________________ Based on this may one conclude that the present day obsession with death that one finds in some Islamic circles is a reversion to heathenism? YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 07:54:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:54:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: In continuation of the topic of kibud av ve-em from yevamot 22b that there is ni issur to curse a wicked father rambam hilchot mamrim explains that this applies only the punishment the Tur disagrees and says that one must honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva others distinguish and say that one must honor a wicked father only while he is alive see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva R Zilberstein brings the Zecher Shlomo (Lech Lecha) and the Chida (Devash Le-phi 1:39) that therefore Avraham owed no honor to his father Terach once Terach handed him over to Nimrod. R Zilberstein further brought the Maharam Shick that one who is involved (metapel) in a mitzvah is the owner of the mitzvah and whoever works and establishes a mitzvah is the one to make the arrangements. Thus the one who actively rears the child is the "owner" of the child and gets to make the decisions and not the biological parent who is not around. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 04:44:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 07:44:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573DA738.2000201@sero.name> On 05/19/2016 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In the shiur of R Zilberstein last night he discussed the situation > of a parent (usually father) who deserts a child in the hospital or > even leaves the family. > One case involved a father who showed up before the daughter's > marriage and insisted that his name appear on the wedding invitation. > R. Zilberstein paskened that the father who abandoned the family has > absolutely no rights to anything. If the mother remarried then the > adoptive father has the right to all decisions. Kibud Av ve-Em > applies to the adoptive father and not the biological father that > abandoned the family. Hakarot hatov is for the help of the adoptive > family and biology contributes nothing. Sorry, this is contrary to halacha. Kibbud av va'em is not connected to hakarat hatov; it's a duty that one owes to ones parents *regardless* of whether they did one good or bad. Even a mamzer owes his parents kibud, although they did him the worst evil. Even Avraham Avinu, whose father handed him over to be burned, owed him kibbud av. An adoptive "parent" is only owed hakarat hatov (and kevod rabbo if he taught him torah) and therefore is only owed it if he actually did good and not bad. An abusive adoptive parent is owed nothing. This is not subject to any machlokes, thus there is no room for different opinions. Someone who says otherwise is simply wrong. I found an answer to my speculation that a Jew's child by a shifcha might be considered his child. It's not so. An eved has no yichus at all, not even to his mother(!) let alone his father. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 19 06:37:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:37:40 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RET: > Not necessarily. yichus refers to marriage. It might have nothing to > do with mitzvot like honoring one's parents and other connections > between parents and child RZS: > What are you talking about? What does yichus have to do with marriage? > Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less. Yichus may of course have different meanings in different contexts. The first mishna in the fourth perek of Kiddushin, Asara Yuchasin, very strongly connects yichus to marriage. The mishna lists ten halachic categories of personal status (my translation of "yichus") , and then immediately details the connection of these statuses to the permissibility of marriage Indeed it is clear that according to this mishna, a *very fundamental implication* of yichus is whom can one marry halachically, Putting this more strongly it seems that the mishna is defining ten halachic "marriageability" categories (yuchasin), making marriageability a *defining characteristic* of yichus. This is most likely what RET had in mind. In the framework of this mishna, RZS' statement "What does yichus have to do with marriage?Yichus means genealogy, i.e. who is whose child. Nothing more or less." is untenable.Yichus defines whom you can marry. When the gemara states "bno min min hashifcha umin hanachrit u eino mityaches acharav" it is saying, as we know, that halachically the child of a male Jew and a female slave or a non-Jewish woman is not his child; there is no genealogical connection ("yichus") between them. This is the sense of yichus that RZS apparently favors, but is a meaning of yichus very different from that in the above cited mishna. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 03:02:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:02:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I am bringing in more detail the story told by R Zilberstein. He gives out notes before the shiur and so this is all in print if anyone is interested A man divorced his wife after a nasty settlement without leaving any mezonot for the wife or their daughter. Later the woman married again and had a new happy family and the new husband raised the daughter from the first marriage supplying all her needs while the biological father had no contact with his daughter A few days before the daughter's marriage the father shows up holding an invitation upset that the adoptive father is listed as the father of the kallah and the biological father isn't mentioned at all. He screamed is the husband of your mother really your father? Though he had no contact with his daughter he described the shame he had with his friends and demanded that they print a new invitation with himself listed as the father of the bride The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father of the bride. Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to have his name listed on the invitation. The daughter returned to her father with the psak of R Zilberstein and the father remarked that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also needs to participate in buying an apartment. R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the biological father is listed. He was not sure whether the language should be "be abuha" or "be nasa" . The first would be a lie since she didn't live with her father but the second language is used only for an orphaned bride. His preferred remedy was to leave that phrase out completely. Again anyone who wants to see the Hebrew original can contact me -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:12:49 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:12:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <573F3781.9080405@sero.name> On 05/20/2016 06:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > The daughter came to R Zilberstein asking what to do. He answered that > the mitzvah of kibud av ve-em is a great mitzvah but it doesn't allow for lies. In other words, her obligation of kibud av va'em is to her real father, not to the one who raised her, but this obligation doesn't include putting him on her wedding invitation, for the reason explained later. > Since the one listed as the father of the bride is the one who brought her > up and did everything for her including all expenses and he supplies the > dowry and the rest of the wedding expenses he thus considered the father > of the bride. I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by the father, but not in this case). > Since the biological father abandoned the daughter he has no right to > have his name listed on the invitation. [...] the father remarked > that he was willing to pay the expenses of the wedding. The daughter > returned to R. Zilberstein. After consulting with R Nissin Karelitz > they paskened that to be considered the father of the bride he also > needs to participate in buying an apartment. Again, the term "to be considered the father" makes no sense here; can money make someone a father or not a father?! If he's not the father how can any amount suddenly make him one, and why are they haggling over the amount? Rather the issue here was not at all whether he's the father. Of course he is. The issue here was who is the host who is making the wedding and inviting people to it. And that is the person who is paying, not just for the actual affair, but also the expenses that enable the affair to happen, i.e. the apartment, without which there would be no shidduch. It appears from this psak that if he is willing to pay this the bride and her adoptive father may not refuse! And that would be because he is after all the father, and thus has the *right* to host his daughter's wedding, if only he is willing to do so. > R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological > father in order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the > biological father is not alive then one lists the adoptive father but > when he is alive the biological father is listed. I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! And the fact is that she is forbidden to his relatives, and *permitted* to her adoptive father's relatives. (In fact it used to be common for someone who raised an orphan to arrange a marrriage for him or her with one of his own children. I even know of a case nowadays where this happened.) -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 20 09:18:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:18:19 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Surely prevention of marriage with (forbidden) relatives is applicable whether the biological father is or is not alive? On 20 May 2016 at 11:02, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: R Zilberstein noted that in the ketuba is listed the biological father in > order to prevent marriage with relatives. When the biological father is not > alive then one lists the adoptive father but when he is alive the > biological father is listed. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 13:00:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:00:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: see http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ and especially http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful for this is also greater. also http://www.lookstein.org/articles/mourning_adoptive.htm The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] The children may be identified when called to the Torah and in formal documents as the son or daughter of those who raised them, and the normal restrictions of *yihud* (which generally allows unsupervised and close contact with only biological parents, siblings and children) is not applicable to adoptive families, whose members interact as a biological family would. This is far more than transporting halakhic forms (like not addressing one?s adoptive parents by their first names) to the adoptive family. It is an expression of a new halakhic reality, so to speak. obviously laws of mourning are different between a biological parent and an adoptive parent Rabbi Soloveitchik insisted that there is a *kiyyum* of the mitzvah of *avelut* even when there is no halakhic obligation to mourn the specific individual. He drew this conclusion from the ruling that ?Where there is a case of a deceased who has left no mourners to be com?forted, ten worthy men should assemble at his placeall seven days of the mourning period and the rest of the people should gather about them [to comfort them]. And if the ten cannot stay on a regular basis, others from the community may replace them.? It was for this reason that the Rav regularly advised children to mourn the adopted parents who had raised them. If there was no * hiyyuv *[obligation]* ha-mitzvah*, there was none-the-less a *kiyyum ha-mitzvah*. BTW a friend of mine told me that there is a psak of R Schacter that if the parent abused the child and it would be a great stress on the child to mourn for the parent then he is exempt from sitting shiva -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 11:20:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:20:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: I found an extended article on how to fix a mazer (tihur mamzerim) from avnei hamakom volume 15 from Rav Oren Zwick As to marrying a shifcha he nrings that minchat yotzchak outlawed it because of dina demalchuta Rab Breish (Chelkat Yaakov) - in a series of letters between them disagrees. In fact it is suggested that in Israel marriage is conducted by the rabbinate and halachically they should be able to allow a shifcha. It is stressed that this is on condition that it be done officially-legally by the Israeli rabbinate. He also discusses other options and ends with a reference to Yevamot 68b and bet shmuel 2:18 in the name os sefer charedim that a mamzer can't live more than 12 months > I suspect that this is still a micasting of the original. I expect that the > original didn't say that he is the *father*, but that he is the host who is > inviting people to the wedding (a role that in *most* cases is played by > the father, but not in this case). I am confused. I emphatically stated that anyone who wants to see the original to contact me and I would send it. Why suspect what is written when one can check it yourself The words that R Zilberstein uses are harei she - "avi hakallah" bnidan didan hu ha-abba ha-choreg Obviously the adoptive father is not the "real" father is considered like the real father and is the one who should be listed as the father in the invitation > I'm sure this is misreported; what difference does it make whether the > father is alive or dead, his relatives are the same! Be-kewtuba raui lichtov et shemo shel ha-av ha-amiti hedei she-lo tezei taut u-machshla be-nisue krovim. Umnam be-yetoma kotvim et shemo shel mi she-gidel otah aval ke=she-ha-abba chai yesh lichtov et shemo I again strongly suggest that anyone who wants to challenge my interepation of the psak look at the original and not guess based on his knowledge what 2 major poskim state. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat May 21 21:10:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:10:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The relationship the adoptive or step-parents have with the children they have actually raised has a functional expression among many halakhists:[9] ============================================== My general take on this topic is that many halakhists bent over backwards to find solutions to the adoption problems mentioned (e.g. yichud). Perhaps it was due to the need for orphans to find homes or the human drive for childless couples to have families(especially when dealing with non-Jewish adoptions)? I never found much written about the meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times influenced the decisions. 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 Sun May 22 16:12:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 19:12:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah Message-ID: Pesachim 35a tells us that ?things which can come to chimutz, a person can fulfill his chiyuv of matza with them; this excludes those which come not to chimutz, but to sirchon.? This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: > Lo sochal alav chametz > Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos > Do not eat chametz with it > For seven days you will eat matzos Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. After all, if the pasuk had said, "Do not eat carrots; you must eat beef," would that lead us to conclude that carrots and beef have similar definitions? However, the truth is that the phrases don't *need* to save any logical connection. If Torah Sheb'al Peh says that this is how Torah Sheb'ksav chose to connect the definitions of chametz and matzah, it's just one of many similar cases. (I don't know whether this particular limud is called a "hekesh" or something else, but I hope my point is clear.) So I am not saying that the gemara was wrong for deriving these definitions from that pasuk. What I *AM* asking is why the gemara points to that pasuk, when there is a different pasuk it could have used instead. In my view, there is another pasuk that makes the very same point, but much more clearly, in a very pshat way. Why should we resort to a lomdishe juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: > Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos > Ki lo chametz > Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah > They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza > Because it did not become chametz > Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. How much clearer can it be, presuming that the Author wants a historical narrative, and not a legal text? If the word "ki - because" was missing, my argument would be much weaker, but it is *not* missing, and it is the cornerstone of my argument: It became matza *because* it did not become chametz. Chametz and matza are one and the same, differing only in that one is baked prior to chimutz (which prevents chimutz from happening), and the other does undergo chimutz. If dough does reach chimutz, getting baked later is irrelevant. Baking is relevant only to preventing chimutz, which is what creates matza: "They baked it into matza, because it did not become chametz." But I can't find anyone who explicitly connects Shemos 12:39 to the definitions of chametz and matza. Even if there is some weakness to this pasuk, and Devarim 16:3 is truly stronger, I would think that this would be mentioned in the gemara. Pesachim 35a should have said something like, "And R' Ploni retorted, Why do you cite Devarim, when we already have Shemos? But R' Almoni answers that Shemos is actually weaker because of..." Does anyone know of anything like this? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 00:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend 11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in techiyat hamettim. What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:40:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:40:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby Message-ID: The Gemara in Kiddushin (73b) has the following case. 4 women give birth to baby boys in the same house and one is the wife of a Cohen, one the wife of a Levi, one the wife of a Nasin, and one the wife of a mamzer. The Gemara states that the midwife is believed to say which is the son of the Cohen, which is the son of the Levi, etc. The Ran quoted by the Beis Yosef (Even Haezer Siman 4) states that this is a takana d'rabbanon that min hatorah the midwife is not believed (because it is a davar sheberva which requires 2 kosher witnesses). This brings up the some obvious questions: 1. What did they do before this takana? It is clear that men were not around during childbirth so how was there any yichus? 2. When was this takana made? 3. How could the Torah have such an impractical approach to these matters? There Torah was given to human beings to observe and for thousands of years women gave birth with no men present. 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 01:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:56:44 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer Message-ID: By coincidence a recent daf yomi (kiddushin 72b) discusses the future status of mamzerim. The following is a non-literal translation of an article by R Avihud Shwartz from yeshivat har etzion. Anyone who wishes to see the Hebrew can request me to forward the original. This is not a continuation of the previous discussion. The gemara says that R Yose says that in the future (le-atid le-vo) mamzerim and netinim will be tahor while R Meir disagrees. The gemara followed by Rif and Rosh pasken like R Yose. Tosafot asks why the need for a psak on events that will only occur le-atid le-vo. The Rosh answers that the gemara is talking about a safek mamzer. But even R Yose agree that cannot solve the problem of a certain mamzer. R Yose is teaching that there is no need to distance from safek rmamzers today since even in the future they will not be revealed. Hence, R Yose is teaching a practical halacha for today. The Rashba says the gemara does occasionally pasken on future questions and so takes the gemara literally. He is then left with the question how can the prohibition against marrying a mamzer disappear le-atid lavoh. The Rashba has an amazing answer. In the generation before the Eliyahu the rabbis will allow mamzerim as an emergency measure (horaat shaah) but when the Moshiach comes they will be pasul. So according to the Rashba at the time of the geulah there will be a one time heter allowing known mamzerim. To explain this Rashba R Shwartz that a condition for the geulah is the achdut of the nation. Mamazerut introduces a separation among Jews. Therefore for one generation the nation will have a complete achdut between families. During the "regel" all Jews are chaverim (Chahiga 27) . One explanation is that that during the holiday everyone is assumed to keep the rules of taharah. However another explanation is that during the holiday everyone is consider a chaver as part of achdut of the people. R Yose sees mamzerut as a type of Tumah and as the Moshiach comes close this tumah will be removed. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:19:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:19:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524091930.GB15539@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) : that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. ... : What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting down : bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than murder, : chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar large : percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a "minor" : halacha. Well, since you already are reading this midrashically, how about... Someone who doesn't bow at modim isn't being used literally, but as a description of a kind of ingrate. Mouths the words of thank you, but isn't moved by them. And perhaps the point being made by the Zohar is that kifui tovah can be the first step, the point at which a soul goes off course and ends up -- after a downward spiral through worse offenses -- not being revivable at techiyas hameisim. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 02:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 05:34:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:00:32PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see : http://dinonline.org/2015/12/07/adoption-in-halachah/ : and especially : http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12721 : In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even : greater... The thing is, though, the conversation before this one, which I am presuming motivated this post, was in particular about kibud av va'eim. Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. : children. But when a couple takes an orphaned or abandoned child and raises : him, their kindness is much greater, and therefore, the duty to be grateful : for this is also greater. Off topic: When prospective fathers call me asking for advice about adoption, one of my first pieces of advice is that you can only do it right if you're being as selfish about it as any other man looking to become a father. If you are doing it because you can look at the child and see in their behavior and personallity some continuation of yourself into the future, fine. But a child needs parents to grow into a healthy adult, not baalei chessed. And I'm not sure if teaching a child this line of reasoning is healthy. It gets in the way of viewing themselves as part of the family's shalsheles. On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 04:10:45AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : I never found much written about the : meta issues and wonder how much the prevailing conditions of the times : influenced the decisions. I think part of the problem is that much of this has to be done subconsciously. The conditions of the times change the metzi'us about which the poseiq rules. And also the poseiq has to try his best to come up with an answer based on the Torah rather than zeitgeist, but no human being's best will ever fully exclude the mood of their era. So the second people start discussing how the times impact pesaq, the discussion itself will change the answer -- and in ways that add rigidity to halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 31st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission Fax: (270) 514-1507 results in harmony and balance? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 03:14:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:14:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> References: <20160524093438.GC15539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Yes, an adoptive child in chayav in haqaras hatov and kavod harav. > But on what grounds does R' Zilberstein argue that the specific mitzvos > of kabeid es avikha or ish imo ve'aviv tira'u apply? I am answering for R Zilberstein so take my words with a grain of salt. First the thrust of the shiur was on the rights of the adopted parents and not on the mitzva of kibud av ve-em. He thus stressed that the adoptive parents have a right to all decisions (apitropus) on the child and not the genetic parents. In particular they make all the decisions concerning education etc including the wedding. As part of the argument he mentioned the zecher shlomo (and chida) that Avraham owed no kibud to Terach once he handed him over to Nimrod. Thus kibud av disappered (pakah) once Terach abandonded Avraham. Since it was not the topic of the shiur he did not discuss if the mitzvah to honor the adoptive parent was mi-deoraitam derabban or something else. I brought from Rav Melamed that it is "only" because of hakarat hatov but he stressed In a certain sense, the moral obligation of an adopted child is even greater, since human nature is for parents to care for and raise their children Of course if the adoptive parents are abusive there is certainly no requirement of kibud or hakarat hatov. > Similarly the abusive parent. There is no haqaras hatov, but isn't there > still kibud av va'eim? I have a friend who was told by R' Reuven Feinstein > that he had to sit shiv'ah for his abusive father. >> I again refer to YD 240:18 where the Ramah states that there is no mitzva of kibud av ve-am when the parent is a rasha. I also explicitly brought from R Zilberstein that the halachot of mourning are different and that one is required to sit shiva and say kaddish for a parent who is a rasha including one who abandonded the child and presumably an abusive parent. I also brought from Rav Schachter (second hand) that if sitting shiva for an abusive parent would present psychological problems than the child is not required to sit shiva. I would personally explain RHS that strong psychological pain can be pikuach nefesh and overrides shiva and kaddish which are only derabbanan > I thought kibud av va'eim had to do with who physically brought you to > the planet, and thus your behavior toward them represents how you would > treat the Third Partner in bringing you into being. again look at YD 240:18 with Shach, Taz, Pitchei Teshuva etc -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:31:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:31:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Establishing the Yichus of a baby In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: 4. How does the halacha deal with the current reality where newborn babies > are taken away to the hospital nursery with a whole bunch of other babies? > I don't think there is any issue here: babies are issued identity bracelets literally seconds after they are born, long before they leave the delivery room. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 05:40:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:40:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57444BBF.209@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:37 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > What bothers me the most is the sense of priorities. Without putting > down bending at modim I find it hard to imagine that it is worse than > murder, chillul shabbat, gilui arayot etc. According to this zohar > large percentages of the Jewish people will not be resurrected over a > "minor" halacha. I don't know how minor this is. Think about it; we're not talking about someone who never comes to shul, and never hears Modim in the first place. What kind of person comes to shul, hears Modim and knows what it is, and yet doesn't bow? Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion of politics real estate er, the Daf. Yes, definitely the Daf. Even if you're deep in, er, the sugya, so long as you're aware that the chazan is saying Modim, you bow. The kind of person who comes to shul and *doesn't* bow at Modim must have some kind of agenda, like the fellow who says "Modim Modim", or "Al Kan Tzipor...", and thus is a pretty serious sinner. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 06:46:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:46:10 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim Message-ID: <politics real estate er, the Daf. >> The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Looking at it again Tosafot (appears on 16b) asks the same question that I mentioned that all Jews have a share in the world to come. Nevetheless as I mentioned Kaf HaChaim brings a Zohar that one does lose one share in the world to come for not bowing at modin. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 09:46 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> Surely once you're there and you hear Modim your back >> bows automatically, even if you're in the middle of a heated discussion >> of politics real estate er, the Daf. > The gemara in Baba Kama 16a seems to be talking about bowing at modim > in the shemonei esre and not modim derabban (the gemara is talking > about the spine changing to a snake 7 years after death) Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 12:38:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 22:38:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: <> I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 13:47:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:47:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5744BDCB.7010207@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 03:38 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > > I believe that Chabad is against adopting babies because of the various halachic problems. Not to adopting, but to pretending that the child is not adopted, which was the fashion in the early and middle 20th century. By the '70s this fad had mostly passed, and it became accepted that adopted children need to know the truth from the beginning. > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. > see however http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=1628 See the last piece, at the end of page 2, by R Eliezerov, which explains the confusion that some people have. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:02:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 00:02:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> Message-ID: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at > modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 14:05:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:05:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> References: <5744A86C.4070404@sero.name> <28df9b41-c702-e53b-0f53-539075b11f76@starways.net> Message-ID: <5744C20F.1030206@sero.name> On 05/24/2016 05:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 5/24/2016 10:15 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Even better. What kind of person davens, and yet davka stays upright at >> modim? Only someone who's got a theological issue with bowing to Hashem. > Someone with a back problem. That is clearly not whom the gemara or the zohar means. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 24 20:48:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joshua Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 03:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >The gemara BK 16a says that one who does not bend in Modim after 7 years >his spine turns into a snake. Given that spines probably don't last 7 years >and the cemeteries are not filled with snakes I don't take the gemara >literally (see however Tosafot ve-hu and kaf hachaim) > >I am more disturbed by the claim (Kaf haChaim in the name of the Zohar) >that one who doesnt ben at modim does not come back in techiyat hametim. >First the gemara in perek chelek implies that most people return in >techiyat hametim. Second the popular opinion is that even the wicked spend >11-12 months in gehinom and then go to gan eden and presumably return in >techiyat hamettim. Interesting. Is the Kaf haChaim, and the Zohar, interpreting the gemara in?Bava Kamma 16a? http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41181&st=&pgnum=106 https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%90_%D7%98%D7%96_%D7%91 That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, allegorically, to mean?that those people won't be resurrected? Kol Tuv,Josh Waxman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 03:14:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:14:45 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: As you know, the question of whether a Bar Mitsva boy continues counting Sefira is the topic of much discussion and Bar Mitzva derashot. Sefardi Poskim tend to assur, Ashkenazi tend to be lenient. But one of the major arguments in favor of a BAR mitsva boy continuing to count is that before Bar Mitzvah he was rabbinically obligated (mi-derabanan) because of Hinnukh. I was recently asked about what to advise a BAT Mitsva girl who has been carefully counting every night - under the same conditions. It would seem that in contradistinction to a minor male, there is no obligation of hinnukh on minor females to count sefira. Indeed, a parent has no obligation of hinnukh on mitsvot that will not be obligatory when the child becomes an adult. Hence, a parent need not train his daughter in mitsvot aseh she-haZeman gramman. See R. Yehoshua Neuwirth, The Halachoth of Educating Children, Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1999) Dinim Kelaliyyim, parag. 2, p. 2; R. Barukh Rakovsky, ha-Katan ve-Hilkhotav, I, ch. 2, no. 7. So I think that - even according to the lenient Ashkenazic sources - it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. But she should definitely continue counting (without a Berakha) because counting is the ikkar mitsva - not the berakha. If someone has sources or solid grounds to be meikeil - I'd be happy and thankful to hear them. Kol Tuv Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 06:48:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:48:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?_May_a_Chassan_May_a_Chassan_who_is_get?= =?windows-1252?q?ting_married_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omerwho_is_getting_mar?= =?windows-1252?q?ried_the_night_of_Lag_B=92Omer_shave_earlier_in_the_day?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_on_the_32nd_of_the_Omer=2C_before_shekiah=3F?= Message-ID: <1464184133111.74887@stevens.edu> >From OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May a Chassan who is getting married the night of Lag B?Omer shave earlier in the day, on the 32nd of the Omer, before shekiah? What is the halacha concerning relatives and other guests attending the wedding? A. The prevalent custom is that one may get married on the night of Lag B?Omer. The halacha in general regarding shaving is to wait until after sunrise on the morning of Lag B?Omer. Rav Belsky zt?l ruled that the chassan and the fathers of the chassan and kallah may shave on the 32nd day of the Omer before shekiah. Other family members and guests should not shave before shekiah. Rav Belsky zt?l did permit them to bring a shaver to the wedding and shave there after shekiah. (See ???? ????, Volume One, pages 109 ? 110) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed May 25 10:24:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:24:17 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] expulsions Message-ID: why could not the Dannites leave the megadef in their midst, what would have been so terrible? it was brought in the name of the Alter of Kelm that you see from here how important to remove bad influence from their midst [and Dan were not considered the cream of the crop]. this may be a source for those that disagree with the tack that removing students from an educational mossad should not be done easily , as pikuach nefesh. the nefesh in question according to the Alter would be the rest of the institution..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 08:44:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:44:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] =?windows-1252?q?May_I_listen_to_slow_music_during_sefir?= =?windows-1252?q?as_ha=92omer=3F?= Message-ID: <1464277506499.46892@stevens.edu> OU Kosher Halacha Yomis Q. May I listen to slow music during sefiras ha?omer? A. Music should not be listened to during sefira whether it is fast or slow, even though slow music is less prone to stimulate one to dance. Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim I:166) questions whether one may listen to music for enjoyment throughout the year, and concludes that although throughout the year there are lenient opinions, but during the period of sefira one must be strict. If one was in a state of moodiness or discontent, Rav Belsky zt?l was of the opinion that even during sefira he may lift his spirits with slow music, provided he does not listen excessively. (See ???? ????, Volume One, p. 106) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 11:32:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:32:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents Message-ID: > For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's forbidden, and that's that. >> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Yichud%20Prohibition%20-%20Part%201.htm The article does bring other poskim including the LR who were strict. Rav Jachter's conclusion is: Obviously, anyone to whom this issue is relevant should consult his Rav for a ruling. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 14:42:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:42:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chametz and Matzah In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160526214223.GA15628@aishdas.org> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : This thread is not about the details of that rule, but its source. The : gemara there bases it on Devarim 16:3: :> Lo sochal alav chametz :> Shiv'as yamim tochal matzos :> Do not eat chametz with it :> For seven days you will eat matzos : Unfortunately, I don't see any logical connection between the two phrases. But this is derashah, not sevara. : .... Why should we resort to a lomdishe : juxtaposition of phrases, when the Torah explicitly defines the words for : us? The pasuk I'm referring to is Shmos 12:39: :> Vayofu es habatzek asher hotziu mimitzrayim ugos matzos :> Ki lo chametz :> Ki gorshu mimitzrayim v'lo yachlu l'hismameah :> They baked the dough that they took out of Egypt into loaves of matza :> Because it did not become chametz :> Because they were expelled from Egypt and couldn't delay : Isn't the definition clear? "It became matza because it did not become : chometz." Matzah is what you get when you take something that *could* : become chometz, but you bake it before it gets to that point. Except that this is a historical statement, descriptive, not prescritive. Their wheat dough was matzah because it happened not to become chameitz -- for reasons the pasuq wants us to notice. Teshu'as H' keheref ayin. And peshat is a pasuq in chumash like in all of Tanakh is more concerned with Mussar than halakhah. It's not a halakhah book at the expense of being a Mussar book. As they say about ayin tachas ayin, peshat is values, derashah exists to provide the halakhah givien the mapping of those values to a limited reality and limited humans. But does that "ki" mean that the lack of becoming chameitz is a defining feature? Maybe a lack of sirchon would also be good lehalakhah, but didn't come up. (Given how much more available wheat was in Egypt.) "Ki" could refer to sufficient cause, you are assuming the pasuq means necessary cause. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 33rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total Fax: (270) 514-1507 submission to truth, and what results? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu May 26 19:23:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:23:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> On 05/26/2016 02:32 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> For example, there are debates about yichud and how to call the son to the Torah > > There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. > Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's > forbidden, and that's that. >> > > Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 04:13:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:13:32 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Aryeh Frimer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:21:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Asher Weiss Re: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Despite what I wrote two hours ago, I was just notified by my Brother Dov that he discussed the issue with Rav Asher Weiss Shlita last night at his Thursday night Shiur in Har Nof Jerusalem. Rav Asher holds that as long as there is continuity, the girl can continue counting with a berakha after her bat Mitsva. Yiyasher Kochacha and Shabbat Shalom Aryeh -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il ________________________________ From: Aryeh Frimer Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:13 PM To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org Subject: Does a Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In a previous post I posited that it would be assur [berakha le-vatala] for a Bat Mitsva Girl to count sefirat ha-omer with a Berakha after her Bat Mitsva. The reason is that her counting before Bat Mitzva was totally voluntary with no obligation of Hinnukh, since it is a mitzvat Aseh she-hazeman geramman (a time determined mitzva). RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, and never will be Chayav. In future years she'll make a Bracha despite not being Chayav according to Ashkinaz Minhag. What stands distinct, as I hear you frame it, is that her non-Chayiv status before and after are distinct statuses which have fundamentally shifted in parallel with the way the shift happens between Chinuch and Chiyuv for a boy. But why make that assumption in the first place? Why not assume that "not Chayav" is "not Chayav", period. It's only one category. Of what relevance to the status of "not Chayav" is the particular events that brought someone to that status?" To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a. ] a woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant berakhot. See: at length, R. Israel Zev Gustman, Kuntresei Shiurim, Kiddushin, shiur 20; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, cited in R. Hayyim Dov Altuski's Hiddushei Batra, haMasbir, Berakhot 14a, sec. 134. If, however, she does not have the status of a full count, then according to major shitot there is a serious doubt as to whether there is a kiyyum and no berakha can be said. One cannot "volunteer" a berakha levatala - and so it will be if there is no kiyyum. -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 08:44:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 11:44:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim Message-ID: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Off line conversation that I'm belatedly moving to Avodah: I asked: Starting at 21:6 (then 21:8, and etc etc.) the phrase "lechem Elokim" is used a number of times. Onkelos translates lechem as korban each time -- which is exactly what one would guess. While my Hebrew isn't great, I couldn't find a single mention of this in my Mikraos G'dolos (just about every mention of that pasuk talks about the first part of the pasuk, about forcing a Kohen to give a get). Perhaps it's just so obvious that lechem means korban here, that it's literally unremarkable. But, still, the use of the word "lechem" seems odd to me. It's as if the Torah is going out of its way to make things sound _more_ anthropomorphic, more primitive, than it needs to. (Granted -- now that I think about it, the phrase "rayach nichoach" also seems gratuitously anthropomorphic -- but: (a) there is some commentary on that phrase; and (b) perhaps we hear "rayach nichoach" so often we're just used to it.) Does anybody have any thoughts on why the Torah, after using the words "korban" or "olah" this entire Sefer, suddenly switches to "lechem" in this perek? R Seth Mandel answered: : From a linguistic point of view, I do not consider the usage remarkable. : This is the House of HQBH, and the qorbanot are His Daily Portion. : The use of the word lechem to describe "portion/allotment" I consider : a perfectly normal, if poetic, term. R MIcha Berger responded: ... It would be interesting to confirm this... Does anyone associate Vayiqra 21 with qorbanos that are forced by the calendar, to the exclusion of chatas, asham, todah, etc...? Does qedushas kohanim have more to do with such qorbanos than others? (And if so, does this relate to which qorbanos were allowed on bamos back in the days of bamos?) Anyone else have any thoughts? (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this significant at all?) -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 09:11:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:11:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Emor -- Lechem Elokim In-Reply-To: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> References: <20160527154438.XJTP2415.fed1rmfepo202.cox.net@fed1rmimpo109.cox.net> Message-ID: <574871A5.80303@sero.name> On 05/27/2016 11:44 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > > (It was also pointed out to me that "lechem" always went with > "Elokim", and "rayach nichoach" always went with YKVK. Is this > significant at all?) We say twice a day "Vaydaber YKVK ... es korboni *lachmi* le'ishai, rei'ach nichochi". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri May 27 11:52:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 14:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] modim In-Reply-To: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1290363281.155247.1464148107591.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20160527185244.GB24209@aishdas.org> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:48:27AM +0000, Joshua Waxman via Avodah wrote: : That is, given that techiyat hameitim is from the luz bone, which is : located atthe end of the spinal column, could the gemara be taken, : allegorically, to mean that those people won't be resurrected? Teaser for my post But the name of the city was "Luz" originally by micha ? [15 Kislev '765] - Fri, Dec 16, 2005 And he [Ya'aqov] called the name of that place Beis-el, but the name of the city was Luz originally. - Bereishis 28:19 Luz, the original name for Beis-el, is apparently the name of a kind of tree, usually translated "chestnut". It's one of the kinds of wood from which Ya'aqov avinu made sticks for the sheep and goats to look at... Bereishis Rabba (69:8) discusses the amazing properties of living in the city of Luz: * They always told the truth. * No one in the city died. When people got old and tired, they needed to move out for nature to take its course. * The city was never conquered by Sancheirev, and wasn't destroyed by Nevuchadnetzar at the end of the first commonwealth... Luz is also the name of a special bone in the body, where the skull and spine meet. Two medrashim associate the luz bone with Hadrian y"sh.... Luz seems particularly connected with Yaiaqov, the one who renames it. First, his service of G-d centers around emes, truth, the middah exemplified by the citizens of Luz. He uses the luz sticks... ... The mishnah says "derekh eretz qodmah laTorah -- proper behavior in society is a prerequisite to Torah." Our aggaditos and midrashim seem to converge on underscoring that point. Luz is the city of truth, it has the permanence of truth both territorially and in the lifespans of its inhabitants. And it's truth, the personality trait about which Yaiaqov centers his service of Hashem, which determines techiyas hameisim. All of these medrashim refer to Luz, to the trait. When referring to applying the pursuit of truth to Torah study or worshipping Hashem, then we progress from Luz to Beis-el. The stick shows the influence of environment... The bone luz is situated just where the mind connects to the body. It is therefore, in a very real sense, "beis keil", G-d's "home" in this world. Ya'aqov builds a circle of stones in which to sleep at this spot, which -- as R' Hirsch notes ad loc -- is the first home of Israel. He gets a vision of a ladder between heaven and earth, an externalized luz bone between mind and body. Once one has the foundation of "Luz", one has the proper personality and attitude to provide some solidity in time and in social context. Then one is capable of building that derekh eretz into Torah, making their soul a house of G-d. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 34th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 and maintain a stable relationship? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun May 29 05:36:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 08:36:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted parents In-Reply-To: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> References: <5747AF93.5000807@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160529123638.GB24648@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:23:15PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :>> There's not much debate about yichud -- almost everyone says it's forbidden. :>> Certainly in Chabad there's no debate at all; the Rebbe paskened that it's :>> forbidden, and that's that. :> Saying that almost everyone says it forbidden is an exaggeration. : No, it isn't. See the list in the previously cited article (I think you : were the one who cited it). RMF is one of the very few who permit it. OTOH, given the size of the observant American community loyal to RMF's pesaqim, anything he says can't simply be dismissed as "rare" either. RYBS was meiqil as well. And, FWIW, was R' Zvi Flaum, a talmid of R' Dovid Lifshitz's - now RY of Shaarei Tzion, oour LOR back when we adopted and the question first arose. I am also curious... RMMS pasqened? Didn't he generally delegate that role to others, leaving himself as head mashpia / moreh derekh, rather than moreh hora'ah? Did this somehow become an emotionally charged machloqes, like eruv for some reason tends to? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 36th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in Fax: (270) 514-1507 being a stable and reliable partner? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 05:25:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:25:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: R. Aryeh Frimer posits that a girl who becomes Bat Mizva during sefira should not continue counting with a bracha after becoming bat mitzva, since, unlike a boy, she had no mitzva to count as a minor because of chinuch. I find this very counterintuitive; on the contrary, it seems to me that a girl has more reason to continue counting with a bracha than a boy. A boy upon becoming bar-mitzva during sefira goes from a status of non-chiyuv (obligation) to chiyuv; one may question whether what he counted in a state of non-chiyuv "counts" when he enters a state of chiyuv. On this point, some poskim say that there was a chiyuv all along, at least rabbinically, so no fundamental change took place; some disagree. A girl, on the other hand, has no chiyuv either before or after her bar mitzva; in this respect, nothing changed at all when she became bat mitzva. Thus, if the girl has been making a bracha on sefira throughout the sefira period, in keeping with Ashkenazi practice, it seems to me that she should continue to make a bracha on sefira after becoming bat mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:42:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:42:02 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas Message-ID: my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 08:34:10 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lawrence Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:34:10 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] The Parshah Dual Dichotomy 5776 Message-ID: <1464622469992.18876@stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6863 For many of us in the know, as well as to the surprise of anyone who might be thinking of traveling to or from Eretz Yisrael, say anytime from after Pesach until Shabbos Chazon, right before Tisha B'Av, something is off. I am referring to the weekly parshah, which would not be the same regularly scheduled one in Chutz La'aretz as it is in Eretz Yisrael. Truthfully, this type of dichotomy actually happens not so infrequently, as it essentially occurs whenever the last day of a Yom Tov falls on Shabbos. In Chutz La'aretz where Yom Tov Sheini is halachically mandated,[1] a Yom Tov Krias HaTorah is publicly leined, yet, in Eretz Yisrael (unless by specific Chutznik minyanim[2]) the Krias HaTorah of the next scheduled parshah is read. This puts Eretz Yisrael a parshah ahead until the rest of the world soon 'catches up', by an upcoming potential double-parshah, which each would be read separately in Eretz Yisrael. See the above URL for much more about this topic. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 11:18:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Jack Stroh via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:18:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon May 30 18:35:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:35:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> References: <574C840C.9050001@usa.net> Message-ID: <20160531013511.GA21014@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 02:18:52PM -0400, Jack Stroh via Avodah wrote: : Hi. This is my first post. Why don't we catch up chutz laaretz with : Israel by doubling up "Achrei Mot and Kdoshim"? That would minimize the : disparity? What was the thinking of Chazal? Thanks. Back a step... Our current leining schedule post-dates Chazal, the standardization ceoms from the geonim. And originally it was in use in Bavel. In EY, 3 or 3-1/2 year leining systems were more common. So the systme was designed for chu"l; the parshios chu"l shuls aren't doubling up aren't supposed to be doubled. It's Israel that slipped out of proper alignment with geonic intent. So the question really is why doesn't Israel fall back into line and minimize their drift from the original geonic schedule. Well, this year there are no doubled parshios for them to split until Matos-Masei -- just in time to realign Devarim with the 9 days. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 02:17:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:17:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children Message-ID: <> <> I agree with Micha. I again bring a list of prominent poskim who agree with RMF so it certainly is not a solitary opinion. I would strongly argue that in practice most people follow the lenient opinion. The article I previously quoted brought those to disagreed and concluded that one should check it out with his local rabbi. He certainly did not dismiss the lenient opinion. Rav Moshe Feinstein (*Teshuvot Igrot Moshe *E.H.4:64:2), Rav Eliezer Waldenburg (*Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer*6:40:21), and Rav Chaim David Halevi (*Teshuvot Asei Lecha Rav *3:39) all rule that adoptive parents are permitted to engage in Yichud with their adopted children since the Yetzer Hara is not interested in such situations. Rav Ovadia Yosef (see *Yalkut Yosef*, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch p.975) is essentially lenient about this issue, though he believes that it is preferable to adopt a girl so that the wife who is home most of the time can shield her husband from Yichud. Rav Nachum Rabinovitch (the prominent Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshivat Hesder of Maaleh Adumim) is cited in Techumin 10:317 by Rav Azariah Berzon as agreeing with the aforementioned Poskim who permit adoptive parents to have Yichud with their adoptive children. Rav Rabinovitch notes that Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:08:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:08:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] rights of adopted children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160531180845.GA12478@aishdas.org> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:17:31PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Rav Rabinovitch notes that : Jews have adopted children since time immemorial. R' Zundel Salant says that it was the zekhus of adopting the children of those who died in makas choshekh that we were redeemed from Mitzrayim. Since we are obligated to remember yetzi'as Mitzrayim, I can't call it "time immemorial", but since our birth as a nation, certainly. >From : Chamushim Hashem brought the nation around, via the path of the desert, the Red Sea; and the Children of Israel arose chamushim (to be defined) from the Land of Egypt. - Shemos 13:8 ... and the Jews enthusiastically departed from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Unqelus (ad loc) ... with good deeds... - Jerusalem Targum (ad loc) ... one in five. -Tanchuma (Warsaw ed. #1), Mechilta ... and the Jews departed with five infants from the Land of Egypt. - Targum Yonasan (ad loc) Rashi defines "chamushim as "armed", which underlies the Targumim of Unqelus and Yerushalmi. Armed in a spiritual sense, prepared with good deeds. Another definition would be from chameish, five, leading to the medrash concluding that only 1/5 of the Jewish were saved from Egypt. Rashi adds that the other 4/5 of the population died in Egypt during the plague of darkness. These were the people who didn't merit redemption; those who believed in the Egyptian paganism and wanted to stay. Deriving chamushim from the number five is also the point of departure for the Targum Yonsan's "departed with five infants." But the medrash on Shemos, describing the Egypt experience, told us that we had six children at a time. How then can the Targum Yonasan here mean that every Jew left with five children, as though this smaller number is something that should impress us? The Be'er Yoseif therefore believes the naive read of the Targum Yonasan is incorrect. Instead, the Be'er Yoseif explains all these targumim in light of each other. The word chamushim was chosen not despite the ambiguity, but because of all its connotations. Four fifths of the Jewish people died rather than being saved. But what about their children? The youth didn't deserve death, even if they agreed with their parents -- as children, they aren't accountable or punishable for their crimes. The Be'er Yoseif explains that this means that each of the 600,000 men left Egypt had to have left with five families of children -- his own, and those of four families left orphaned by this punishment. Far more than the six-at-a-time that were born to them. This is not only the intent of the Targum Yonasan, but also, raising others' children the "good deeds" of the Jerusalem Targum, as well as the "zerizus", the enthusiasm, of the Targum Unqelus. They were prepared and surrounded by the mitzvah of taking in these children in need. Today we think of adoption as something someone does when they r"l can't have children of their own. However, in light of this devar Torah, we see that this mitzvah played a central role in defining us as a people. According to the Be'er Yosef, it is the merit of adopting orphans that rendered us ready for the redemption from Egypt! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 38th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability Fax: (270) 514-1507 promote harmony in life and relationships? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 09:15:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:15:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ie in ghettoized Europe , the Accursed Wandering Jew was only the killer of the 'saviour'; not much better in Moslem Middle East. In Modern Times, it can't refer to the million chassidim , to whom isolationism is the ideal , not to mention theologies of the value of the gentile. In Litvish models, ideally the Jew should be confined to the beis medrash , and the spouse 'kvoodah pnima'. It is only the lack of Manna that interferes and forces bedieved one out of the ghetto. The OTD Jews of the last 200 yrs who have impacted every walk of life and every class of endeavor in academia , commerce , culture and liberal polity can not have been what chazal had in mind. The Israel model is the most vilified political entity on Earth. If it's only a messianic concept , then it has nothing to do with the Jews , only the Messiah. so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue May 31 11:40:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:40:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? > > SNIP > > so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, > practically. > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or they need work in this area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 03:25:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:25:31 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5/31/2016 9:40 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in > Yishayahu. It is a real concept. No, it is not. > when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it > practically have been implied? > was it ever taken seriously? The phrase ohr l'goyim doesn't exist. There are three verses where something similar exists. Isaiah 49:6 says that Hashem has placed us l'ohr goyim. Isaiah 42:6 also says that Hashem placed us l'ohr goyim. And Isaiah 60:3 says that nations will walk in our light. There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us. And it's not for any specific generation, I don't think, but all of them. We are the example. Whenever I hear "ohr l'goyim" it irks me, because it's such a mistake. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:51:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> References: <757ba1bf-b76c-e93a-325a-32801baaf595@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160601165119.GB20066@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:25:31PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : There's a big difference between ohr l'goyim and l'ohr goyim. The : former implies some sort of responsibility to reach out to the : nations of the world. The latter says that we are a nation among : nations, but what kind? A light. They come to us.... This is clearly peshat in Yeshaiah 60:3, "beholkhu goyim le'oreikh..." But "le'or goyim", in 42:6 and 49:6... I would have said something close to the reverse; to me le'or goyim sounds more like an imperative. An or lagoyim is a descriptive construction. Yeshaiah would be saying that we are light for the nations. L'or goyim is more prescriptive, we are "to provide light for nations". Not as a light, but in to be one. And it's up to us to actually illuminate. BTW, according to Rashi (42:6) those goyim are the shevatim, not other nations. And according the Metzudas David, it's a messianic prophecy, not an imperative before-hand. The thing is, we're obligated to serve as a nation of kohanim in the here-and-now regardless of Yeshaiah. So I see this as a discussion of peshat in the pesuqim, with no pragmatic difference to hashkafah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 39th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliable person? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 1 09:22:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:22:27 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Saul Guberman wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it >> practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? > A quick search shows that Ohr La Goyim is mentioned 3 times in Yishayahu. > It is a real concept. It is meant for every generation. That you then > show we have not lived up to that goal at various times and/or other > nations do not see us that way does not negate the concept. It shows we or > they need work in this area. my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of humanity in all generations; except possibly recent times, when those clearly NOT living a halachic life are seen by some at least to have been a source of blessing... furthermore, we fast on the day the Bible was translated, so we can't even say that the other Abrahamic religions is the explanation, since they become in a sense Fruit of a poisonous tree, to use the legal analogy From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 02:58:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:58:08 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: I am gratified that my understanding that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during the sefira period can continue to count with a bracha was also expressed to RAFrimer by RMH. Unlike RAFrimer, I do not think that this this constitutes a "fundamental misunderstanding" of brachot women make on time-bound mitzvoth, according to the Rema and standard Ashkenazic practice. If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her chiyuv-level not having changed. I am completely unsurprised that Rav Asher Weiss paskened that a girl who becomes Bat Mitzva during sefira can continue counting with a bracha, based on his understanding of the mitzvah of sefirat haomer, as appears in Minchat Asher Vayikra chapter 51. R. Asher asks a series of questions that indicate that sefirat haomer is different from other mitzvoth which are performed verbally (see there). He then explains as follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting avodat Hashem. Shofar, lulav, matza are examples of the former. Biur chametz and maakeh are examples of the latter. We make brachot on both categories of mitzvot, but there are differences between them. Sefirat Haomer is a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the mitzvah itself; the avodaat Hashem of sfirat haomer is knowing the count every day, not saying the words themselves. Saying the words is the action by which the desired result is achieved (unlike other verbal mitzvoth like kriyat shma and hallel in which saying the words themselves is avodat Hashem). R. Asher explained elsewhere that mitzvot in which the tozaa is the mitzvah do not require kavana , which is why someone who answers the question "what's the count tonight?" without intending to perform the mitzvah of sefira is nevertheless considered to have performed the mitzvah. In sefira, when a day is counted, when the result of the counting has been achieved (the person knows, by counting, what day it is), the mitzvah has been done. My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) , even if strictly he is not obligated; when he becomes a gadol, he is considered not to have missed any days, and can continue to count with a bracha. As Rav Asher explicitly paskened, this applies to a k'tana as well. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 04:36:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:36:19 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25c18a21-7bfc-78f4-f9a0-30ba738263a7@zahav.net.il> To give a metaphor: If the machine generating the light is working improperly, the light could be dangerous and it needs to be sent out for repair. Without getting into the question of how the machine broke down (God directing or us choosing to break it), it is clear that if we aren't doing the job, a tikkun is required Ben On 6/1/2016 6:22 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > my point is a bit different than yours. it is that the RBSO arranged > history so that the nation of light should be seen as a scourge of > humanity in all generations; From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 07:33:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:33:30 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>>It shows we or they need work in this area. ---- meila i can understand blaming us . but to blame 'they' , the goyim is saying they refused to hear the gospel..... >>>>>>If the machine generating the light is working improperly ---- or properly working light, just that the potential buyers threw it in garbage I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to listen to our message... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 06:21:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:21:18 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: I am responding on avodah to some remarks on arevim > So if the health minister happens to be ... anti-vaxx ..., suddenly the > halacha has to turn around?! And after the next election it turns around > again?! Look at what happened in Israel two years ago, when German > was health minister and decided to end fluoridation. Now Litzman is > restarting it. Was everyone supposed to change their minds in those two > years, or accept that the truth changed, just because the government did?! This completely misunderstands the role of government rules. Besides dina de-malchuta we learn that if not for the government we would live in anarchy everyone decides for themselves what is best. Medieval philosophers and commentaries debate why one must listen to the government. Opinions range from divine rights to the king can kick you out to more modern theories that the citizens accept the rule by staying in the country and especially by accepting privileges from the government like the use of roads, army, schools etc. In consonance with the Mishna we listen to the government because without it there is chaos. The government specifies safety laws, traffic laws, tries thieves and murderers, has laws against sexual and drug abuse There is nothing in these theories about the government always being right. Obviously, governments are made from people who make decisions and different countries have different laws some more liberal and some more conservative. However in each country one is required by HALACHA to follow the government regulations (as long as they don't conflict with halacha). If the regulations change over time then yes the observant Jew much change his behavior just as he changes when doctors change their views or when a bet din changes their views. When batei dinim in different locales disagree then each community must follow their local bet din. Pointing out that a different bet din disagrees doesn;t matter one must follow the local bet din. Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. ------------------------- In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Some possibilites that have been offered include 1) There is a mitzvat aseh to listen to the rabbis 2) It is based on logic similar to above, otherwise it leads to chaos He went into a side discussion of the status of sevara (deoraita?) and a Rav Akiva Eiger. 3) The rabbis are smarter than us and so we should listen. RMA points out that there is an intrinsic problem. If the reason is too good then we are back to question that it becomes a deoraita. If it is weak then listening to the rabbis becomes wishy-washy, ie if circumstances change, if one disagrees with their reasoning etc. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 09:49:03 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:49:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603165041.NPMS27913.fed1rmfepo103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> R S Newman has posed the question in a provocatively interesting way. Thanks! Musing out loud, is it possible that the concept applies to Torah/Torah values in addition to its people? For example, doesn't the Rambam offer that Xtianity and Islam, both "offshoots", if you will, of Judaism, have moved the world's population (at least partially, in the case of some part of Xtianity) away from A"Z? As a second data point, R Jonathan Sacks often points out how many of the world's ideas are rooted in Torah (e.g., equality (even the King!) before the law, which, in turn, gave rise to (because it was a necessary pre-condition of) democracy, etc.). -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 11:04:07 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:04:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: <133b75.a02d7da.44832097@aol.com> ohr lagoyim when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? was it ever taken seriously? ....so i guess i don't get when this concept was meant to be relevant, practically. >>>> It began long before Chazal, in the time of Avraham Avinu. (The concept, not the exact words.) And Yitzchak and Yakov. "All the nations of the world will be blessed through you." For the incredible moral and intellectual influence the Jews have had on the rest of the world throughout history, see Thomas Cahill's book, *The Gifts of the Jews* and read Dennis Prager's review of the book in *First Things* which summarizes the book's main points. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/11/002-cahills-gift Hirsch in the introduction to his commentary on Tehillim shows that Dovid Hamelech meant for Sefer Tehillim to be used as a book of prayer by all the nations of the world and indeed, this has come to pass, with Tehillim having been translated into practically every language in the world. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:22:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:22:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 3 13:37:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:37:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 07:33:30AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : I suppose the answer is that pre-messianic times [ie golus] is our fault . : so WE created the tyrranical Outsider who oppressed us and refused to : listen to our message... As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those words exist anyway? RBW assumes that it does, and therefore if we are unhappy with the rate of progress, we should asume the light needs fixing, not that its users are neglecting it. But I have no doubt that our influence has had a central role in the progress of civilization. Whether or not we consciously worked at it. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 41st day, which is micha at aishdas.org 5 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Yesod: What is the ultimate measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 of self-control and reliability? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 11:20:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:20:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. Message-ID: basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier For a detailed answer see http://rabbikaganoff.com/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:11:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:11:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how many tochachas In-Reply-To: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> References: <20160603202244.GA14869@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57539853.9030809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:22 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:42:02AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > : my wife tells me she heard a lecture in which they list 3 tochachas---- the > : two plus devarim. do people normally count that there are 3? > > The middle of VeHayah im Shamoa? The first 11 chapters of Devarim is a tochacha. But it's not curses, which is what we usually associate with the term. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 4 20:15:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:15:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > words exist anyway? In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; that people will come to EY to do business with Shevet Zevulun, and while they're there they will do some touristing and visit Y'm to see what is to be seen, and be so impressed that they'll accept the 7 mitzvos and bring zivchei tzedek. So there's no missionising, no outreach, just us being ourselves, and those who are already prone to be attracted to the light will be attracted. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 09:04:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:04:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Laining difference between Israel and Chutz Laaretz. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160605160452.GA11606@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 09:20:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : basically the answer has to do with the parshiot before shavuot. : The major question is why does chul wait until matos-masei and not earlier : For a detailed answer see : http://rabbikaganoff.com/ With all due respect to RYK, what I said earlier is historically correct: the currently leining system was designed by geonim for Bavel. So chu"l leining for the 8th of Pesach instead of Acharei-Mos was correct scheduling. It is Israel that got ahead. So the major question is why does EY wait until Matos Mas'ei to split a double parashah and fall back into sync with the design? And that's easy -- because all the double parshios before then are already split! If you want to ask why the ge'onim have us splitting all the double parshios, yes, that has to do with timing the tochachah to be 2 Shabbasos before Shavuos. But that's not a why we didn't catch up to EY yet thing -- catching up was never a goal. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 05:45:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 08:45:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, saul newman wrote: >> when did this concept in chazal begin? to which generation could it practically have been implied? >> was it ever taken seriously? There are multiple r Avigdor miller shiurim where he demonstrates clearly that Jewish ideas have slowly entered the goyishe (western) world thru us. Where Jews did not live, our teachings have yet to have the same effect (far east, Africa, etc) This is also the message of r Aryeh Kaplan in 'If You Were God' http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48970646.html See r ken Spiro's 12 part series world perfect where he demonstrates that this has occurred http://www.aish.com/sem/wp/ Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c learn from us) Its true we spent most of our history just trying to survive, but by osmosis (and more) our ideas and ideals have molded and raised the level of humanity as a whole Mordechai Cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 10:09:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:09:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> References: <048001d1bf28$31a29270$94e7b750$@com> Message-ID: <57545CC9.3050301@sero.name> On 06/05/2016 08:45 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > Numerous sefarim say that that galus occurred bc we were not on a sufficient > madraidga to be world educators from our home in Israel, so we had to be > dispersed amongst the nations so that we c be closer to them (so that they c > learn from us) The gemara says that "Israel was only exiled among the nations so that converts should be added to them". Note the passive form. Even in galus we were not expected to actively recruit gerim, but rather to live among the nations so that those who are naturally attracted to our way of life would be able to find us and avail themselves of an option that they would otherwise never know about. Not even a symbolic hishtadlus is expected of us; we are simply to do our own thing, but in a place where potential gerim will see us. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 12:46:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:46:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those : >words exist anyway? : : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; ... The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an imperative to put in conscious effort as well. My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to avodas Hashem. Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat in "le'or goyim". There is also a possibility that le'or goyim is a messianic prophecy. Like And the same questions could be raised with "Halkhu amim rabim... Ki miTzion teitzei Sorah..." De facto, it will? We must act in a way that causes Torah to be spread from Zion? Now? Le'asid lavo? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 13:00:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Mashbaum via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 23:00:36 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Does a Bat Mitzva girl continue counting during Sefira Message-ID: In discussing the case of a girl who became bat mitzva in the course of sefira, it is instructive to consider the analysis of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik (the Rov) of the Bahag's opinion on sefirat haomer (see Harrei Kedem Volume II chapter 112). The position of the Bahag is that one who does not count one day of omer does not make a bracha on subsequent days The Rov did not accept the widely-held opinion that the Bahag holds that there is one mitzva to count all 49 days. Rather, each day of sefira is a separate mitzva. However, on each day, there is a "din mesuyam", a particular law that the previous days have been counted. If this is not true, one is counting not sequentially, but with skipping, not the count the Torah specified. Skipping a day invalidates each and every subsequent day, not the totality of the count. As is well known, according to the Bahag, one who forgot to count at night counts during the day without a bracha, but may subsequently count with a bracha. The Rov asked: according to the Bahag, does one fulfill the mitzva of sefira during the day? If so, why doesn't one make a bracha? If not, why may one continue counting subsequent days with a bracha? The Rov held that the Bahag held like Rabbeinu Tam that the mitzva of sefira is only at night, and when one counts during the day he does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all. However, when counting during the day, one does a "maase sefira", an act of counting, even if he does not perform "mitzvat sefira". This maase sefira makes his counting connected, and he can continue counting with a bracha, although there was one day on which he did not perform the mitzva of sefira at all. According to the Bahag, one who forgot to count the 49th night gains nothing by counting the following day, since one does not fulfill the mitzva of sefira at all during the day. Counting during the day is not in itself a mitzva, but only helps to enable counting subsequent days with a bracha. Even if one were to say that a katan (minor) does not have a chiyyuv (obligation) to count sefira, and a katan that counts has not performed the mitzva of sefira, nevertheless his count is a "maase sefira", an act of counting. In this way the count of a minor is similar to counting during the day; it is a masse sefira which enables one to continue counting with a bracha, even when the katan becomes a gadol. Clearly, this applies to a minor girl exactly as it does to a minor boy. The Rov noted that even if one were to know that he will not be able to count every night until Shavuot, he counts every night with a bracha until he misses, since each night's count is a separate mitzva, and skipping a future night will not invalidate a previous night's mitzva. Saul Mashbaum From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 23:49:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:49:09 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On 6/5/2016 10:46 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:15:56PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 06/03/2016 04:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : >The issue Lisa and I were discussing is whether "le'or goyim" implies > : >a chiyuv on our part, and if not, does the chiyuv people read into those > : >words exist anyway? > : > : In support of the "no" side, the main example given is "`amim har yikra'u"; > ... > > The exitence of an influence that does not require our conscious effort > and wouldn't be an imperative does not speak to the exitence of an > imperative to put in conscious effort as well. > > My earlier comment in reply to Lisa was that even if le'or goyim were a > statement of fact rather than an imperative, wouldn't charged with being > a malekhes kohanim imply that imperative anyway? And I think the answer is "no". > So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to > shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim > either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to > avodas Hashem. Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the nations of the world. > Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. > [Rabbi Chanina b Dosa] haya omer: Kol sheruach haberios nochah heimenu, > hurach haMaqom nochah heimenu. And again, no chiyuv here. > > Similarly R Meir in the beraisa (Avos 6:6). Etc... > > It seems that there is much to be said about our acting in a way that > is attractive to all berios, Jew and non-Jew alike. Regardless of peshat > in "le'or goyim". No one is saying it isn't a good thing. But we prioritize, and whether a thing is an obligation or not goes into the calculation of those priorities. This isn't an obligation. To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 5 19:50:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 22:50:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ain machlokess bo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5b76f9d9-80e4-c222-c9e6-881437eb0fb9@gmail.com> In //Dynamics of Dispute/,/ I develop the idea that the Rambam, when he says that there is no //machlokess/ /b'payrush mekubal miSinai/,/ he does not mean that there were no disputes *about* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. He means that there was no disagreeing *against* any explanation agreed to have been given by Moshe from Hashem at Sinai. In note 12 (p. 82) I wrote that in addition to indications that this is so from other writings of the Rambam and their applications to talmudic sources, The //Mevo HaTalmud//, attributed to Shmuel HaNaggid, indicates this definition of the word //machlokess// as well. I have just found that the Meiri on Avos 5:19, regarding a different subject, explicitly gives this definition to the word //machlokess//, explicitly negating it in the other sense. He writes: It seems to me that [the use of the word] ''machlokess'' attaches only to the one who responds to the first [speaker]. I.e. ...when a second person responds [to the first] and says, ''What you say is proper to do is improper, or what you taught is wrong,'' this [response] is the ''machlokess.''...the "machlokess" only refers to one of the two sides, the one that responds to the first. Another way to put it: Sometimes the word //machlokess/ /refers to an opposing opinion, not to two or more opposing opinions. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 05:56:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 08:56:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> >> No one is saying it isn't a good thing. ..To paraphrase someone, it's descriptive; not prescriptive. R Avigdor miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Mordechai cohen ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 9.1.0.2894, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.22240) http://free.pctools.com/ ======= From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 09:22:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:22:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: >>>As R' Sholom and Rn Toby noted, it's not that we haven't brought light to the world during galus. I would say that it's that the process is so slow we do not notice it when looking in the timespan of a single lifespan. We're watching the hour-hand and complaining it doesn't move. ------ the only problem i have with their approach is that , had the Jewish people been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies their job was basically done---since a billion xtians then took over , and a billion moslems after that . the direct interaction of jews w goyim in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to have minimal direct impact . where jews have major impact in modern times , in science , entertainment , ,media etc are ways that clearly were not only not what Scripture had in mind, but in many cases directly contravening Tradition.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 04:56:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:56:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel wrote: > In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R > Michael Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the > requirement to listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo > tassur". Ramban disagrees and says that if so then every derabban > becomes a de-oraita. RMA points out that the more difficult shita > is actually the Ramban. He offers no alternative to the Rambam. Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 12:49:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:49:09AM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So, nu, our influence via daughter religions and just being there to :> shape host cultures may have fulfilled the prophecy of le'or goyim :> either way. Yet we still have to act in a way that brings others to :> avodas Hashem. : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the : nations of the world. So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a tzivui? :> Hevei mitalmidav shel Aharon ... uheiv es haberios umeqarvan laTorah. : Good mussar, but also not a chiyuv. (I just noticed this tied to "mamlekhes kohanim" quite smoothly.) We also see from hilkhas geneivas aku"m that chilul hasheim and qiddush hasheim involve whether we ch"v distance aku"m from AYH or merit to draw them closer. So I guess we could add qiddush hasheim and avoiding chilul among the list of potetial imperatives that say le'or goyim in more clearly tzivui terms. Going back to the parshanus of le'or goyim... RET posted on Areivim in 2012 (quoted then by RnCL, with permission at , quoting IE and the Radaq (49:6) that le'or goyim refers to Yeshaiah's nevu'ah 00 the light is the nations seeing that his nevu'ah was fulfilled. And thus not about the Jewish people at all. To which RnCL replied citing the Rashi (as I already wrote, in one place he takes "goyim" to mean shevatim, and thus uplifting other Jews) and then quotes the other Radaq (42:6) and translated: > And so you would be also l'or goyim like it says "And nations shall > walk to/in your light -v'helchu goyim l'orech" [Yeshiyahu 60:3 - where > it is pretty clear that it is the nation Israel being talked about] > and the light is the Torah that shall go out to them from Tzion. And then translating Metzudas David (ad loc): > L'or goyim - to light the eyes of all the nations to know that Hashem > hu haElokim. Closing with her own thesis: > And indeed I think that it is the other pasuk quoted by the Radak, ie > v'helchu goyim l'orech that is the one that is the real source for the > common understanding which is usually labelled as Or l'goyim. That pasuk > is quoted all over the place (unlike l'or goyim), for example in dozens > of places in midrash raba, tanchuma, pesikta d'rav kahana etc And a lot > of the commentary in the various midrashic sources involves analogies > between the shemen zayis that lights the Beis HaMikdash and Yisrael who > lights the world -eg Shemos Raba which goes on to say and so our fathers > were called zayis because they gave light to all with their emunah. > > That is, to my mind, the concept which we understand to be or l'goyim is > unquestionably there in the sources - it is just generally drawn from a > psuk that is much more of a mouthful (Yeshiyahu 60:3). L'Or goyim, does, > it would seem according to all the classic commentators, mean a light to > the nations, as we would understand it, but, at least on one of the two > pasukim where it is used, it is understood as referring to Isaiah himself, > not the Jews in general (but note that it is clearly a good thing, > and high praise of Isaiah, that he should be considered this). And, > as so often seems to be the case (and as discussed with tikun olam) > the phrase which tends to roll off the lips in the common parlance is > not the strictly correct biblical terminology, but the one that sort of > sounds right to the ear of the layperson to get to the concept of which > they are aware. To continue her thought to focus on 60:3, I see BB 75a explains vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as a messianic prophecy, and someting HBH will do, not even hilkhisa demeshichasa. Metzudas David: "As to say, from you they will learn the ways of Hashem and you will light their eyes." Also, not clearly a tzivui. The Tanya 1:36 takes "vehalkhu goyim le'oreikh" as messianic, and thus not a tzivui for the here-and-now The Malbim takes the pasuq as prophetic and descriptive, linking the seifa, "yeilekhu leneged zarchakha" to "ukhvodo alayikh yra'eh" in the previous pasuq. Okay, given 60:2, we could presume 60:3 isn't imperative either. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:38:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:38:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> References: <058901d1bff2$e10fb970$a32f2c50$@com> Message-ID: <20160606203815.GB983@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:56:44AM -0400, M Cohen wrote: : R Avigdor Miller said (paraphrased) when asked if we should actively go out : and convince goyim to keep their sheva mitzvos etc : : In theory we should, but in practice we have a lot of cleaning up of own : backyard to be done first before we run after helping them clean theirs.. Maybe in theory we should clean up our own backyard first, but... Anyone in kiruv would question whether they are all that separable. My own most inspiring Shabbasos were in NCSY, experiencing it with people for whom it was one of their first few attempts to observe Shabbos. Similarly, anyone who has given a shiur will tell you that the topics they prepared to teach others are those they know best. And even during the shiur -- umitalmidai yoseir mikulam. Maybe if we invested effort being a mamlekhes kohanim, we would be better at avoiding messing up our own backyard too. And for a Hirschain perspective... The Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch by Rabbi Mayer Schiller http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/humanisim_rsrh.pdf Jewish Action (Summer 5759/1981) pp. 21-26. Vol.49, No. 3 On pg 24 (PDF pg 4) he quotes 19 Letters where RSRH talks about a world in which every Jew would be a mutely eloquent example and teacher of universal righteousness and universal love; if thus the dispersed of Israel were to show themselves everywhere on earth as the glorious priests of God and pure humanity... RSRH makes a duty to set an example. Not to actively teachm but not to ignore the example we set either. And then there's the Semag (Asei 74), which I translated for : I already expounded to the exiled from Jerusalem who are in Spain and the other Roman exiles that now that the exile has gone on far too long, it is appropriate for Israel to separate from the vanities of the world and grab onto the signet of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is truth, and not to lie neither to Jew nor to gentile. Not to mislead them in any way. To sanctify themselves even in what is permitted to them, as it says, "The remnant of Israel do not commit sin, do not speak lies, and one won't find a false tongue in their mouths." (Tzefaniah 3:13) And when Hashem comes to save them, the nations will say, "It was done justly, for they are a people of truth and the Torah of truth is in their mouths." But if they act with the gentiles with trickery, they will say, "See what the Holy One, blessed be He did, that chose for His portion thieves and con-men." Also, it says, "I will plant her [the Jewish People] for myself in the land..." (Hosheia 2:25) A person doesn't plant a kur [of seed] but to produce numerous kurim. So too the Holy One, blessed be He, planted Israel among the lands so that converts will join them (Pesachim 87b) and every time that they conduct themselves with trickery, who will attach to them? It seems that unless we act in a way that makes it obvious to non-Jews that our redemption would be just, the Semag expects us to continue to languish here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 44th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice Fax: (270) 514-1507 does unity demand? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 6 13:39:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:39:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> On 06/06/2016 03:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : Or rather, Hashem is telling us that this will be the end result. I > : don't see any indication of an obligation on our part towards the > : nations of the world. > > So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > tzivui? 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. 2) What is the origin of This idea you keep pushing, that "mamlechet kohanim" has some connection to outreach to anyone, let alone nochrim? 2a)Since when is that a kohen's job? 2b) Pshat in "kohanim" is princes, as in "uvnei David kohanim" (Rashi) This whole idea is at most, again, a nice drasha for a rov in shul, or for a mussar sefer, but certainly not relevant to halacha. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:43:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:43:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "Okay, so every d'rabanan is actually a d'Oraisa. Is that problematic? I always thought that was in fact how we hold. (Even if d'Oraisa, we can still use rules like "safek d'rabanan l'kula", because that's how they legislated it from the beginning.)" What you suggested is what the Ran says, however, the Ramban explicitly rejects this idea. R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? Therefore, he explains that by dinim d'rabbanan what is not important is the actual mitzva act, but the fact that you listened to the Chachamim and did not rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 03:51:58 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I referenced who explains the Ramabam. R' Meir Simcha makes a very different assumption. He assumes that every d'rabbanan is NOT necessarily the ratzon hashem and therefore by d'rabbanans what is important is that you listen to the chachamim and not rebel, the actual action is not as important ayen sham. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 12:42:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:42:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160607194229.GA27374@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:22:53AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote: : the only problem i have with their approach is that, had the Jewish people : been eliminated from the earth [ch'v] after jesus' time, it implies : their job was basically done -- since a billion xtians then took over, : and a billion moslems after that. the direct interaction of jews w goyim : in either xtian europe or moslem europe/asia/africa could be argued to Unless you think our presence had a cultural impact that explains things like why the doctrine of trinity evolved and why they don't go on Crusades anymore. On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a :> tzivui? : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. Targum Yonasan ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be called on to serve. Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. Kehunah is a duty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 45th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Malchus: What is the beauty of Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity (on all levels of relationship)? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:22:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:22:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> On 6/7/2016 11:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But kehunah? I think it's a job by definition. I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Lisa --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 13:39:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:39:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <575730E4.7050400@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 04:39:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :>So you see "ve'atim tihu Li mamlekhes kohanim..." as nevu'ah, not a > :>tzivui? > : 1) Yes, of *course* it's not a tzivuy; it's not even a nevuah. It's a > : description of the deal being offered: if you listen to Me you will be > : My segulah, a mamlechet kohanim and goy kadosh. That is clear pshat; > : anything else is a nice drasha, but not relevant to halacha. > Targum Yonasan You mean, of course, "Yonasan", i.e. a version of Targum Yerushalmi that a printer mistakenly attributed to Yonasan. But of course we all know that, I hope. I just expected to see the scare quotes. > ad loc "vekhehanin meshamshin" -- to be a kohein is inehrently to be > called on to serve. A kohen's shimush is the avodah in the BHMK, not anything else. It's (1) a promise, not a tzivuy or a nevuah; and (2) has nothing to do with "service" to anyone. > Qedushah could be something you do, something done to you, or in many > hashkafos, inherent. (R Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk argues against > this last one in both the MC and the OS. Vehemently; likening belief in > inherent qedushah to cheit ha'eigel.) But kehunah? I think it's a job > by definition. *If* it's a job, it's a job of avodah BHMK, and the pasuk is promising that if you do as I tell you then I will award you this prestigious job. But Rashi says the *pshat* here is not a job at all, but a status. He has to say that, because al pi pshat non-bechorim were *never* intended to be kohanim meshamshim. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:01:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:01:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <20160607204234.GA11763@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573627.6060306@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 04:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Also the Sifri p' Chuqas #123 considers "mamlekhes kohanim vegoy qadosh" > as the kelal for the perat of "eleh devarim asher tedaber el BY... vayasem > lifneihem es kol hadevarim ha'eileh, asher tzivahu H'". 1. I think you got that backwards. Ve'atem tihyu is the prat, and Eileh had'varim is the klal. 2. I fail to see the point you're deriving from this. How does this make it a tzivuy of any kind? However you read it, it's still a promise, a proposed deal, not a command. > As the Malbim says, to be a kohein is to be meyuchad la'avodas H'. > Kehunah is a duty. Meyuchad is not a duty, it's a status. What one is meyuchad *for* can be a duty, as here (except for the problem that non-bechorim were never intended to do avodah), but the yichud is not a duty. "Mekudeshes" doesn't mean "obligated in the duties of a wife", it's the status of being dedicated to one man, though that status by its nature *comes* with those obligations. And "harei at mekudeshes li" is certainly not a command to do those things that a wife is obligated to do for her husband. It's predicated on an understanding that she *will* do them, but it's not itself any kind of command. But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:20:00 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> Message-ID: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 14:40:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> On 06/07/2016 05:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:22:43PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > : I disagree. It's a status by definition. A status that carries > : with it certain responsibilities and certain restrictions. > > Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 7 23:02:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:02:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: The Megilla describes how Ruth sneaks in to where Boaz is sleeping and lies down at his feet and that Boaz woke up in the middle of the night to find her there. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (19b) states that Boaz had a bigger Nisayon with Ruth then Yosef had with Potifer's wife because Ruth was single and tehora (see Rashi there). I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? I would bet that the answer for everyone (male) reading this is no. The thought would not even cross our mind. So why does the Gemara state that this was a tremendous nisayon for Boaz? It's not like there is no yetzer hara for arrayos today, there certainly is, just look around at what is going on in the world around us and even within the frum community. And yet, IMHO the average person would not see the situation described in the Megilla as a nisayon at all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:09:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:09:30 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. Ben On 6/8/2016 8:02 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you > woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) > lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 13:01:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:01:15 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up Message-ID: in this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work in the long run. i wonder if the claim is true, and if so, how could there be a hetter for such a thing---multiples are riskier than singletons; i can't imagine that a posek could allow that jsut for budgetary reasons... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:23:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 22:23:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > > Even if that is true, why does that make it a big nisayon for boaz? It's either an issur drabbanan or doraysa for him to sleep with her. Why would he be tempted? He also happened to be an old man. If a woman came up to you and made it clear that she wants to sleep with you would you be tempted? Would that be a tremendous nisayon? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 12:42:09 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:42:09 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] samael Message-ID: not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger of doing so? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:26:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:26:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] samael In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589BAA.7090905@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 03:42 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > not pronouncing the name of that angel, is that a chassidic thing? have > never encountered that before elsewhere. what is the source and the danger > of doing so? One is not supposed to pronounce the name of *any* angel that isn't also a human name. As far as I know this is a universally-accepted rule. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 14:55:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:55:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Does Bat Mitsva girl continue counting during Sefira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608215544.GA2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:13:32AM +0000, Aryeh Frimer via Avodah wrote: : RMH wrote me off-net as follows: "While understanding that she : wasn't Chayiv m'Shum Chinuch, she's also not Chayiv post Bat Mitzvah, : and never will be Chayav... I am wondering if the chiyuv of chinukh to follow minhagim may be more binding than any minhag itself. If she is counting because that's what women in her eidah do, poerhaps her post-bat mitzvah chiyuv is *less*. : To this I responded: IMHO, there is a fundamental misunderstanding here : regarding a women's recitation of berakhot on Misvot asei she-hazeman : geramman (time determined commandments). As explained by Tosafot (Tosafot, : Eruvin 96a-b, s.v. "dilma.") and Rabbenu Nissim [Hiddushei haRan, Rosh : haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Rosh haShana 33a; Ran on Rif, Kiddushin 31a.] a : woman can make such a berakha because although it is voluntary there is : a kiyyum haMitsva (proper fulfillment of the mitsvah) and she receives : heavenly reward. Accordingly, she may also pronounce the attendant : berakhot... And because "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" is a statement about HQBH commanding the tzibur, so there is no sheqer inan einah metzuvah ve'osah saying "vetzivanu". For that matter, how does making a berakhah on a mitzvah performed for chinukh work? And returning to the case of an edah where women are nohagos to count the omer, an Ashkenaziah would make a berakhah on a minhag too. On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:58:08PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote: : If a pre-Bat Mitzva girl can make a : bracha on sefirat haomer, her count is clearly a kiyum mitzvah : (otherwise she could not make a bracha) , and thus she should be able : to continue counting with a bracha after becoming Bat Mitzva, her : chiyuv-level not having changed. If in all cases, she is making a berakhah on the tzibur's command, and perhaps the over la'asiyasah is what triggers why say the berakhah now rather than some other time. I think the list of sources RAF provides speak more to what constitutes a trigger for saying the berakhah than what the berakhah is on. And lemaaseh, chinukh, minhag and einah metzuvah ve'osah are each sufficient for Ashkenazios. : ... [R Asher Weis] then explains as : follows (my formulation): There are mitzvot in which the action : (peula) constitutes the mitzvah, and there are those in which the : result (totzaa) is the mitzvah, the action being the means to : achieving the purpose of the mitzvah, the result alone constituting : avodat Hashem... Sounds like a sibling to the Brisker gavra vs cheftzah. Whether the gavra has to do the pe'ulah, or the tzotza'ah must take effect onthew cheftzah ... : My application of the above: Even if a minor is not obligated in a : mitzvah in which the totzaa is the kiyum kamitzva, if he does it, the : mitzvah has been done (for example , mistaber if a katan made a : maakeh, the owner of the house has fulfilled his obligation, as is : definitely true if a non-Jew made a maakeh). Thus, when a katan : counts, he has achieved on the personal level the mitzvah of sefira : (he knows the proper count, which he expresses by counting) ... Yeah, but it's not only the child counting, it's the child's mind which knows the count. Kind of like the non-Jew made the maaqah, but on his own home! Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:25:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:25:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the : government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not : knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas. Many accuse the AhS of writing things that would to appeal to the govt censor. But not to distort the din, only in cases where he thought the readership would realize he was obviously doing so. Which means that the AhS can't be used as a ra'ayah, because those who disagree will simply say he *obviously* couldn't have meant it. But the idea that communal policy halakhah should follow the NIH (or your country's equivalent) recommendations because the alternative is chaos appears compelling. Assuming the poseiq things the gov't is being honest. : In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael : Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to : listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees : and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita... Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on their audience. Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently includes conflicting laws. : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo sasur cannot apply. Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300 : R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to : explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim : d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do : the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that : whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we : keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem. : : This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I : referenced who explains the Ramabam.... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 min. in). As is my norm, I add bits here and there. ... But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, neither to the left nor to the right"? 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between Torah and rabbinic law. 2- [My own addition] R' Shimon Shkop allows us to say the same thing, 180deg off. In Shaarei Yosher, he asks the question of why a sefeiq sefeiqah (a doubt added upon a second doubt) is ruled leniently. The Rashba (Shu"t 1:401) holds it's a variant on the notion of relying on majority... Rav Shimon explains sefeiq sefeiqa on other grounds, following the Rambam. Who said that a doubt in Torah law must be ruled stringently? It wasn't the Torah, it is rabbinic! ... So, rather than the Ramban's limiting the specific prohibition to only cases where we are certain about the realia, it's possible that we could limit the rabbinic enactment of ruling stringently on Torah law to have only been made about the other 612 laws. With the same consequent rationale. 3- Rav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (Meshekh Chokhmah, Devarim 17:11): A Torahitic prohibition describes something that is inherently wrong. The universe is made such that combining meat and milk is a problem (metu'af, meshuqatz). A rabbinic prohibition lacks that reality. Chicken and milk isn't inherently damaging, it is that it leads to error through habit or accident. Therefore, one needn't the same care when dealing with rabbinic extension as when dealing with the damaging or refining thing itself. 4- Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Qunterus Divrei Soferim): Of course there is a reality to rabbinic statements. It is all revealed from the Creator, all the Ratzon Hashem yisbarakh (the Will of the Creator, blessed be He). The difference between a derabbanan and a de'oraisa is the explicitness. Therefore it is less sacred, and violation involves lesser realities. A difference of quantity, not quality. Rabbi Rakeffet links Rav Elchanan's position to his belief in da'as Torah; both imply a belief that there is revelation of Hashem's Will today through the rabbis. 5- Shulchan Arukh haRav [another addition not in the lecture]: In a rare case of where the Shulchan Arukh haRav discusses the purpose of a law rather than just codifying practice, he discusses the significance of yom tov sheini shel galiyos, the observance of a second day of Yom Tov outside of Israel. He explains that there is no time in the heavenly realms. The supernal "Pesach" is not associated with any particular time. Hashem made a connection between that Pesach and the 15th of Nissan, giving us a worldly manifestation within time. The SAhR continues that the 16th of Nissan is connected to the very same supernal Pesach. The seder on the 2nd night is a manifestation of the same metaphysical reality. What differs is who draws down the connection, not what it is we are connected to. Perhaps this is generalizable to rabbinic legislation in general. This would result in an opinion similar to Rav Elchanan's in that it gives a reality to rabbinic law, rather than their just being pragmatics for how to keep Torah law. However, the opinions are also quite different in that it makes the rabbinic legislator a metaphysical engineer, building the reality, rather than a conduit of Hashem's revelation of that reality. And, to continue R' Rakeffet's thought, Chassidic attachment to the Tzaddiq is not the same as the Yeshiva World's notion da'as Torah. 6- Seifer Me'iras Einayim (SM"A, Ch"M 67, #2): The berakhah that Hashem gives to those who keep shemittah , that they will have sufficient crops in the 6th year for the 6th, 7th and 8th years, is only when shemittah is mandatory by Torah law. (I.e. when the majority of the tribes are in their lands, and therefore there is a yoveil every 50th year.) Today, someone who keeps rabbinic shemittah gets no such guarantees. 7- Chazon Ish (Deshevi'is 18, #4): The blessing did apply during the 2nd Temple and after its destruction, for the heavenly court fulfills based on what's decreed down below. Rabbi Rakeffet identifies the SMA with the position of the Meshekh Chokhmah, and the Chazon Ish with R' Elchanan Wassermnn's. To my mind, it's possible that his position is more like the Shulchan Arukh haRav. However, this explains why the Chazon Ish was so willing to be stringent when it came to keeping shemittah. Had he felt that the observance didn't come with insurance from the A-lmighty, perhaps he would have ruled leniently. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 15:31:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:31:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] encouraging twins and up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57589CB8.8080308@sero.name> On 06/08/2016 04:01 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > in this documentary > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itq7BvTGgWI&feature=youtu.be it is > claimed that some women use meds to have multiple births since a few > babies at a time will basically mean over all less time off from work > in the long run. That only makes sense for women who are planning a particular size of family, and use birth control the rest of the time. I don't see how it could possibly work for women who never use birth control, and whose "plan" is to have as many children as Hashem sends. How could having more than one at a time reduce the total number of pregnancies? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 16:18:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:18:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> References: <20160603203735.GA18320@aishdas.org> <5753996C.5000809@sero.name> <20160605194629.GA10472@aishdas.org> <20160606194918.GA983@aishdas.org> <5755DF85.4070105@sero.name> <20160607201918.GB27374@aishdas.org> <52992e2e-8bda-1fb3-2b75-6f0d5051fd3b@starways.net> <20160607212000.GC16644@aishdas.org> <57573F5A.3010408@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160608231854.GC16414@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:40:42PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : >Then how could it be conjugated "lekhahein Li" (Shemos 29:1)? : : "Melech" and "sar" are statuses, but "limloch" and "lisror" are verbs. : For that matter, the verb "limloch" doesn't actually involve *doing* : anything, it's just a verbal form of "to be king". Which is why it's intransitive. I included the "Li" in my quote because the prepositional phrase was part of my point. "Lekhahein" is not the verb of being a kohein or being made a kohein, but doing a kohein's job. Also, Yeshaiah 61:10, "kechasan yekhahein pe'eir". Even any case, I found this in the Seforno on the pasuq: And with this you will be a segulah from among them [referring to "vehyisem li segulah" in the previous pasuq]. Because you will be a "mamlekhes kohanim" to understand and teach to the entire human species that all will call in Hashem's name and to serve Him "with one shoulder"... Which not only makes my diqduq point, he clealy speaks of a duty to actively instruct the world -- ROS writes "lehoros lekhol hamin ha'enoshi". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:23:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Arie Folger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:23:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim Message-ID: R' Zev Zero wrote: > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand experiences with the job, too. Kol tuv, -- Arie Folger, Recent blog posts on http://rabbifolger.net/ * Koscheres Geld (Podcast) * Kennt die Existenz nur den Chaos? G?ttliches Vorsehen im J?dischen Gedankengut (Podcast) * Halacha zum Wochenabschnitt: Baruch Hu uWaruch Schemo * Is there Order to the World? Providence in Jewish Thought * What is Modern Orthodoxy (from a radio segment) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 02:50:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:50:18 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Authorial Programs Message-ID: I've been leading a chaburah studying the Minchat Chinuch. It's quite interesting trying to figure out why he dives into some topics in detail and others he says would be too long, or this isn't the place to discuss detail or he's "not holding" in it right now. Makes me wonder how many mechabrim have a conscious, programmatic approach versus a subconscious approach or no unifying theme. Anyone aware of any analysis? 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 Wed Jun 8 22:30:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:30:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* > a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" > on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) > The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only an asmachta. > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > > : R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > : explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not > : necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be > what > : Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara > that > : a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. > If > : every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... > > His Will is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This > would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on > their audience. > > Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently > includes conflicting laws. > That is not the Meshech Chochmas point. His point is that we as human beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the action. > : rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > : against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why > : sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the > : main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek, > : there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast > : that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the > : ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim. > > This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs > to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo > sasur cannot apply. > This is not the Ran it is the meshech chochma explaining the Rambam > Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq > de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur. > ... I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps > shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore > came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah. > > > R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of > Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52 > min. in). As is my norm, > I add bits here and there. > ... > But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic > law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you, > neither to the left nor to the right"? > > 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made > the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the > case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between > Torah and rabbinic law. > This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the opinion of the Ran. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 8 22:34:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 08:34:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Ben Waxman wrote: > Maybe you're projecting 2016 sexual mores on a Middle Eastern society from > 2500 years ago? Ruth was super modest. Doing something so unmodest (again, > in that society (and in contemporary Torah society) could simply be taken > as a sign that she wanted to sleep with him. > > Ben > > And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger nisayon then Yosef faced? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:22:18 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:22:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" is only d'rabanan. In other words, if one has a legitimate safek about whether he did a d'Oraisa, then it is a smart idea and/or a rabbinic obligation to resolve that safek, but he is not required by the Torah to do so. I don't know if the above is correct, but if it is then it could be very relevant to the current discussion. For example, a safek d'rabanan might be a sort of "sfeik sfeika", and therefore go l'kula. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 07:31:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:31:06 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Cholov Stam Outside of the US Message-ID: <1465482641540.74929@stevens.edu> From http://tinyurl.com/hezpyyn Q: I am planning a vacation to some foreign countries, and I assume that since I drink cholov stam, I can drink the milk in the countries I visit. I wanted to double-check with you, just in case. (A consumer's question) A: It's a good thing that you contacted us! The heter of cholov stam, which was explained in the previous installment of Halcha Yomis, only pertains to countries which have adequate dairy regulations. The OU's poskim have ruled that European Union nations and other countries with well-enforced dairy regulations qualify for the heter of cholov stam. In countries where such regulations are lacking or are poorly enforced, milk remains prohibited as cholov akum and requires on-site kashrus supervision in order to be permissible. To inquire about a specific destination please contact the OU via kosherq at ou.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:43:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:43:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AAB7.5050807@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 09:22 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > I recall hearing once that the halacha of "safek d'Oraisa l'chumra" > is only d'rabanan. See Shev Shmaatsa at great length on this question. I don't remember his conclusion. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 09:24:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:24:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <6874d850-2a95-6a64-9804-922d76799eba@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20160609162401.GB31542@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowlderized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Second, being gadol hador just makes it worse. Kol hagadol mechaveiro yitzro gadol heimenu. (An idea with way too much evidence in support in the newspapers. Not the drequency of the stories, it's still man-bites-dog. But the things religious people and other role models are caught doing that most of us aren't tempted to do....) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 47th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about Fax: (270) 514-1507 unity-how does it draw out one's soul? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 10:40:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:40:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5759AA0E.60404@sero.name> On 06/09/2016 05:23 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Zero wrote: > > > But all of this is beside the point, because a kohen's job does not > > involve any kind of outreach. Except for the two days a year that his > > beis av is on duty in the BHMK he has no duties at all. > > I am afraid that a certain heilige yid by the name of Yechezkel, the son of Buzi, disagreed with you. > > Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. > "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" > > Given he was himself a kohen, he might have had first hand > experiences with the job, too. It was expected that all of Shevet Levi would devote themselves to learning, since they had nothing else to do, and since they got in that position in the first place mostly by dint of having already been the Torah-learning class in Mitzrayim (which role they got simply by staying in the beis medrash when everyone else ran out to do their civic duty) it was natural that they would continue. Thus it was expected that they would be prominent in the Sanhedrin ("uvasa el hacohanim haleviyim") and "yoru mishpatecha leyaacov". But there was no requirement on any individual Cohen or Levi to do so; they were given land for farming around each of their cities, and by the late 2nd bayis it appears that most cohanim, or at least a large proportion of them, were amei ha'aretz, and this did not make them less Cohanim. From this I conclude that Torah is not part of the job, but rather something to do when you're *not* on the job. The actual job of kehuna was a well-paid sinecure that Hashem gave them so they would have the time to do this other thing on their own, much as one is supposed to let a Talmid Chacham sell his goods first in the market, so he can get out of there and back to his "hobby". -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 9 06:08:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:08:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Message-ID: <000001d1c250$098a3600$1c9ea200$@actcom.net.il> Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. She was not a stranger accosting him on the street, she was not a work colleague (with whom there are certain professional boundaries) nor was she the girl at the checkout counter. (Platonic relationships had not been invented yet-yes, I'm being sarcastic. There is probably no such thing as a truly platonic relationship between a straight man and a straight woman, which is why we are enjoined to be tznu'im. En apotropus le'arayot, remember?) His own wife had died a couple of months before (at the start of the barley harvest) which probably meant he was lonely and certainly meant that involvement with Rut would not have been an emotional betrayal of his wife. It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. It was highly unlikely that anyone would have known about a one-time liaison between them, so there would have been no hillul haShem, and Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 07:30:15 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:30:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, Some want to distinguish between different types of safek 1) safek in the :metziut" 2) safek in the din 3) machloket poskim -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 10:25:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:25:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] temimos re: last day of shavuos Message-ID: <20160610172550.NHHT21830.fed1rmfepo201.cox.net@fed1rmimpo305.cox.net> I was doing some learning with a Kollel guy in a chabura about s'firas ha'omer, and I asked RSM's famous question, pitting "tosafos yom tov" vs the minhag that the Taz mentions of waiting until the end of the 49th day to count because of "temimos." The Rav thought it was a great question, and he took it back to his Rosh HaKollel, who, among other things asked: if this is such a good kashya, why does nobody even bring it up for 200 years after the Taz? Quite "coincidentally", he ran into a 32-page packet, just produced by BMG in Lakewood, that is on this very question. So, for your interest and/or Shavous study, see , or https://www.dropbox.com/s/ig0jxw2ye3xlpjy/%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99.pdf?dl=0 (you can download it) Good shabbos and a gutten yuntiff! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 10 13:36:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160610203636.GA30587@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:30:15PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The Rambam holds that safek deoratita lechumra is a rabbinic law while the : Rashba disagrees and says it is a torah law, .... This was discussed earlier on this thread, right before RAM's question: Me: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#03 the other RMB: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol34/v34n067.shtml#08 :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Today is the 48th day, which is micha at aishdas.org 6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer. http://www.aishdas.org Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different Fax: (270) 514-1507 people together into one cohesive whole? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 03:24:29 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:24:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Post-Modern Orthodoxy Message-ID: <20160614102429.GA26569@aishdas.org> I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this generation than in mine is that post-modernism has become part of the common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O, if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there is nothing one could ever know to be objectively true. And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though, you won't find too many people with post-Modern notions of science, declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs... I think post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. However, I can know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification. So, the folk there pointed me to Rav Shagar (Rav Shimon Gershon Rosenberg), a DL postmodern baal machashavah. Along the way, someone mentioned R/Dr Alan Brill's blog post of notes he made to himself teaching R Shagar's works. or . To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism to Sheviras haKeilim and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea to be objectively true to Ayin. Given their advice, and the hopes that I could find common language with the post-modern among my own children, I spent part of the "3 day yom tov" with R' Shagar. Given my opening rejection in post-modernism, as well as a couple of comments made by Dr Brill, I must admit I may not have been fair. Perhaps one of his fans is lurking on list and wants to clear up wht I misunderstood. As R/Dr Brill put it "The very question" in the prior sentence, not quoted, "shows that Shagar is treating postmodernism as an ism to adopt rather than the current condition of our lives like the prior existential-psychological era that we did not choice but were embedded within." R Shagar builds a case for the condition of believing in nothing and turns it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. An inability to believe that something is objectively true into the belief in of an objective Ayin. Help? 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 Tue Jun 14 14:10:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:10:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 16:00:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:00:51 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <598c06.3f27511.4491e6a3@aol.com> [1] From: Micha Berger via Avodah Subject: Re: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth : And therefore what? According to Chazal Boaz was the Gadol Hador and he : was also an old man. Why would a strange woman giving him a sign that she : wanted to sleep with him tempt him? Why would that be called a bigger : nisayon then Yosef faced? [--R' Marty Bluke] I took Chazal to mean the story as I learned it in school was bowdlerized. I suspect that "vegilis margelosav" is sagi nahor. Eg, why "margelosav" and not "raglosav?" Micha Berger micha at aishdas.org [2] From: Simi Peters via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) Subject: [Avodah] boaz and rut Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her. .... It would have been easy for him to see Rut's behavior as the sexual invitation of a lonely, socially isolated woman, whose feelings he did not want to hurt. ....Boaz could easily have justified availing himself of the 'invitation' instead of waiting to do things through bet din the next day. I think that adds up to a fairly decent nisayon. Kol tuv, Simi Peters [3] From: Ilana Elzufon via Avodah Subject: Boaz's nisayon with Ruth >>I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her?<<[--R' Marty Bluke] As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. .... So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love...lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana >>>>> [1] Over the years I too have wondered about the use of the word "margalosav" instead of "raglosav" and came to a similar conclusion to RMB's, that is, since "margolios" are pearls, the pasuk might be talking about the family jewels. However I did not assume that Rus /actually/ uncovered Boaz in that way but rather, that uncovering his feet was a way to hint to him that he should uncover something else -- not that night, but in due course. That he should act as her goel, that he should marry her and have children with her. [2] Yes, Boaz liked her and admired her but when Chazal say that the evening was a great nisayon for him they are clearly saying that on that night, he was attracted to her and had the desire and opportunity to sin. The nisayon was much more than "he didn't want to hurt her feelings." And she wasn't so "lonely and socially isolated"-- she could easily have married a much younger man, as Boaz says when he speaks of her great chessed in approaching him instead of going after the bachurim. [3] The idea that he was "deeply in love with her" is a stretch but yes, he clearly had feelings for her. Until that night I would say his feelings were mainly protective and paternal -- he always called her "biti, my daughter" -- but that night, under those circumstances, a yetzer hara was aroused that does not seem to have been there before. After all, months had passed and he had not suggested marriage, which was the very reason Naomi resorted to such an unconventional strategy. [4] I want to add one more point, which is that not all old men are the same. R' MBluke started this thread by asking why this should be such a nisayon when Boaz was "the Gadol Hador and he was also an old man." That the Gadol Hador could be overtaken by illicit desires we already know from many previous incidents involving Yehuda, Shimshon, Dovid Hamelech and others. As for old men, many lose desire as well as the ability to act on their desires, but we know that this was not the case with Boaz from the very fact that he did indeed father a child with Rus. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 14 15:49:12 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 08:30:47AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote: :> Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is* :> a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu" :> on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a) : The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo : tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only : an asmachta. And later: :> 1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made :> the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the :> case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between :> Torah and rabbinic law. : This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and : then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the : opinion of the Ran. What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling you why the pasuq "lo sasur" is not an azahara, and not a complete denial that the power to make a derabanan is from the Torah. As the Ramban puts it, shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on the pasuq. Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: :>: R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating :>: explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not :>: necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what :>: Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that :>: a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If :>: every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? .... ... : His point is that we as human : beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when : making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the : act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to : their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the : action. I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects their legislation. Or, ein hatzibur yalhol la'amod bam, which is the category all the MC's examples demonstrate. In either case, he talks about the difference between a deOraisa, where one might ch"v eat chazir because of a safeiq and a derabbanan where, as you put it "the value is in listening to their words". It is from that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. 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 Tue Jun 14 16:24:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:24:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ohr lagoyim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160614232420.GB5539@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:23am CEST, R Arie Folger quoted Yechezqeil ben Buzi haKohein (44:23): : Ve-et 'ami yoru bein qodesh le'hol uvein tame letahor yodi'um. : "And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and : profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" RAYK (MiDevar Shor 16) writes that this is why we're called "beni bekhori Yisrael". The kehunah of the bekhor, to serve as either shaliach haMaqom to the family, or their shaliach before Him. See or . Also see Mal'akhei 2:7, for a similar definition of kehunah (WRT benei Aharon): Ki sifsei khohein yishmeru da'as veSorah yebaqshu mipihu.... RAYK's point is much like the LR's words when launchind the Noachide campaign: A particular task [is] to educate and to encourage the observance of the Seven Laws among all people. The religious tolerance of today, and the trend towards greater freedom, gives us the unique opportunity to enhance widespread observance of these laws. For it is by adherence to these laws, which are in and of themselves an expression of Divine goodness, that all humankind is united and bound by a common moral responsibility to our Creator. This unity promotes peace and harmony among all people, thereby achieving the ultimate good. As the Psalmist said: "How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Every second is a totally new world, micha at aishdas.org and no moment is like any other. http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Chaim Vital Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 04:39:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:39:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon wrote: > So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was > deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it > only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his > wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world > to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at > his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 05:25:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:25:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RMBluke: The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I agree that "deeply in love" is probably be too much - but I think it is quite plausible that he was falling in love with her, whether he realized it before that night or not. It certainly makes it much easier to understand the nisayon if that is the case. And even if romantic love is much more emphasized in our time and culture than many others, I find it unlikely that it did not exist at all in Biblical times. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 13:44:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:44:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> I said that ?Boaz knew, liked, and even admired Rut, fully accepted the fact that she was Jewish and felt protective toward her.? This is not a claim that he was ?in love with her? (nusah 21st century) and is not the projection of a Western conception of Romantic love (nusah 14th century). Men and women have always been attracted to each other and loved each other which has, b?H, ensured the survival of the human race. Yitzhak avinu is described as loving Rivka imenu (after marriage); Yaakov avinu is described as loving Rahel imenu and Mikhal bat Shaul is described as loving David (in both cases before marriage. What is being described is an emotion, not an action.) And while Shir haShirim is allegorical, the allegory describes a profound, intense and sensual love. Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. Hazal do not find strange the idea that an old man might have sexual feeling and reactions. (Consider their description of David and Avishag in the presence of Batsheva.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From: Marty Bluke [mailto:marty.bluke at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:40 PM To: Ilana Elzufon Cc: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group ; Simi Peters Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Ilana Elzufon > wrote: RMBluke: I am having a hard time understanding this nisayon. Imagine if you woke up and found a beautiful woman (full clothed in a tznius manner) lying at your feet. Would you have any hava amina to sleep with her? As RnSP points out (in a different subject line), they were certainly not strangers. I will confess that I have always imagined that, over the weeks of encountering each other repeatedly during the course of the harvest season, the two may well have developed feelings for each other. From the very beginning, we see that Boaz was caring, helpful, and protective towards Rut - feelings that can easily develop in a romantic direction. His actions could also easily have led her to be attracted to him. Without Naomi's intervention, neither would have acted on these feelings. Rut would certainly not have the temerity to initiate a relationship with a man of Boaz's status - it would probably have been improper for her to do so with any man. And what does Boaz say when he discovers Rut? He praises her chessed for not going after the younger men. He seems to have assumed that such a beautiful and relatively young woman, of such fine character, must have no shortage of admirers in her own age group, and that she would and should prefer them to an older man like himself. So what is the nisayon? He woke up and found the woman with whom he was deeply in love (had he admitted this to himself already? did he realize it only at that moment?) lying at his feet. And she asked him to "spread his wings" over her. Would it not have been the most natural thing in the world to invite her to come under the blanket next to him, rather than staying at his feet, and to let one thing lead to another? Ilana The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a situation where they almost certainly don't apply. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 15 23:29:19 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:39:55PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : The idea that Boaz was deeply in love with Ruth is probably a case of us : projecting our Western sensibilities and feelings of romantic love onto a : situation where they almost certainly don't apply. I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". When it comes to Yaaqov and Rachel, we find even more explicit description of a couple who who romantically in love. "Vaya'avod Yaaqov beRacheil 7 shanim, vayihyu be'einav kayamim achachdim be'ahavaso osahh". I think that academic claims of how much the human condition has changed over the millennia need to be checked against our belief that while TSBP evolves over time, halakhah does its redemptive work for generation after generation. Yes, many things have changed. The industrialist who relates to time with the linear instruments of a clock and day planner experiences something very different than the farmer's cycles of day and night and of annual seasons. Both of which are very different than the post-telecom experience of time which is dominated by events to respond to (phone, email, text/IM), more so than a preplanned schedule. But far more stays the same than would make for good PhD theses. 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 Jun 15 23:38:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:38:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. A ra'ayah for the Ramban is Yevamos 61a, which says that zenus (eg WRT marrying a kohein) is relations between two people who are not allowed to marry. Not all two people who aren't actually married. The Rambam (lav 355) cites the Sifra, Qedoshim 77. However, the Sifra inside distinguishes between being mechalel one's daughter lesheim zenus vs not lesheim zenus. So I don't get it. 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 Thu Jun 16 01:36:54 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:36:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I dunno... Yitzchaq meets Rivqa, she literally falls for him. They > try pulling the sister-wife thing, but they blow it because "Yitzchak > metzacheik es Rivqa ishto". Truthfully, I never understood that whole story. Avraham was very well known generally and certainly by Avimelech and it was common knowledge that Avraham had a "miracle" son at the age of 100 but no daughters. How could this ruse have possible worked? Additionally, how could Yitzchak and Rivka have been meshamesh bayom where someone could see them? In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came after he married her and brought her into his tent. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Simi Peters wrote: > Boaz was a tsaddik, but prior to the establishment of the issur of yihud > with a penuya, relations with an unmarried, ritually pure woman might not > have carried the same halakhic or social stigma as it does today. The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:58:34AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: >: The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >: any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >: malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. Even the Ramban who says that there is no technical issur d'oraysa, would probably declare this kind of behaviour is naval birshus hatorah and certainly not what the Gadol Hador should be doing. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 05:47:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:47:21 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] gemara narrative Message-ID: <23bc4e6f392f4404bbfbd7d994e281a8@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> When you are learning gemara and you come to a give and take where the hava amina seems strange (e.g. maakot 14a where the gemaras first assumes the rabbanan learn a din from lchaleik yatzah and ask where does R' Yitzchak learn it from. Gemara answers from a different pasuk and then asks why don't the rabbanan learn it from there. the answer is ein haci nami?! -- so why record the whole misattribution of reason, and how did they know/not know) KT Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 01:47:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:47:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: What I see is the Ramban (Hasagah, Seifer haMitzvos, shores 1) telling > Ramban puts it, > shelav zeh 'delo sasur' hu keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah > aval divreihem al zeh halav halav asmekhinhu samakh be'alma > lo sheyehei azhara kelal be'oso lav > As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power > to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on > the pasuq. > Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that > following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu > bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With your formulation that question still arises. > Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: ... >: His point is that we as human >: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when >: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the >: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to >: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the >: action. > I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el > Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects > their legislation. If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 08:10:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:10:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> <20160614224912.GA5539@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616151039.GF25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:47:01AM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote: :> As I see it, the Ramban is saying that lo sasur gives them the power :> to legislate, but the specific legislation (oso lav) is only someikh on :> the pasuq. :> Which would keep derabbanan's out of the list of 613, but still mean that :> following them is a qiyum of lo sasur. A way to have the "asher qidishanu :> bemitzvosav" cake and eat it too. : The Ramban's problem with the Rambam is that if derabbanan's are based on : lo tasur then why the distinction between derabbanans and doraysas. With : your formulation that question still arises. With a mitzvah de'oraisa, oso lav is deOraisa. We do not cook meat with milk because of a derashah from a pasuq that is specifically about oso lav -- basar bechalav. With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav. (Earlier version had "bachaleiv imo", but mentioning bird milk seems too silly even for an imaginary pasuq.) I find the question cleanly -- and to my thinking, intuitively -- avoided. AISI, my read of the Ramban is an intuitive take on the chiluq. :> Ad kan discussing the Ramban. Jumping back to discuss R MS haKohein: : ... :>: His point is that we as human :>: beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when :>: making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the :>: act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to :>: their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the :>: action. :> I think he switches your cart and horse -- "efshar de'eiono misqabel el :> Retzon haBorei". Not that they miss His Will, but the Creator rejects :> their legislation. : If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. As I said, cart-and-horse. The causality is that the rejection is being offered "in response" (kevayakhol) to the law. Not that the law is to be rejected because they failed to respond to His Will. Yes, whether A causes B or B causes A, you still end up with both. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger What we do for ourselves dies with us. micha at aishdas.org What we do for others and the world, http://www.aishdas.org remains and is immortal. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Albert Pine From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:07:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:07:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, : the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came : after he married her and brought her into his tent. I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" in differing ways. 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 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:12:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 19:12:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> What are the pragmatic reasons? In particular what happens when the reason for the derabbanan no longer exists. Is there a difference on the origin of the derabbanan? One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 09:58:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:58:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:12:28PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> that part of the MC I get the idea that he is distinguishing deOraisos :> as having ontologies we need to avoid or experience, and derabbanans :> which are all about following orders for pragmatic reasons. : What are the pragmatic reasons? Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. OTOH, a gezeirah is pragmatic -- nothing happenms to you for vioolating it. The whole thing is a means of preventing ending up committing a real sin. Is there power to lighting a menorah of Chanukah, or did Chazal just have to pick /something/ to standardize how people fulfil the general deOraisa of commemorating a neis? Second day yom tov nowadays, does it connect to some supernal koakh, as the SA haRav says? Or is it a way to keep alive memory that the calendar ought to be al pi re'iyah? : In particular what happens when the reason : for the derabbanan no longer exists. The fact that the consumer is totally disconnected from shechitah and kashering nowadays might have rendered the gezeira of owf bechalav superfluous. People have little reason to confuse the rules of one with the other. But even if it's true that the reason stated in the gemara no longer exists, would anyone would say it is therefore no longer in force? Even though the motive is pragmatic., Is this baserd on the idea that we have to be chosheshim for unstated reasons and those may not be pragmatic? What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention anyway. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate, micha at aishdas.org Our greatest fear is that we're powerful http://www.aishdas.org beyond measure Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:10:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:10:25 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did sleep together. I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. Ben ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah > : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get > : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. > > Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:07:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:07:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> On 06/16/2016 03:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > ..On 6/16/2016 8:38 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: >> : The Rambam writes at the beginning of hilchos ishus that after matan torah >> : any biah that is not l'shem kiddushin is an issur d'oraysa and he would get >> : malkos. That halacha was certainly around at the time of Boaz. >> >> Only "certainly" if Boaz held like the Rambam rather than the Ramban. > In addition the Taz writes in Hilchot Nida (YD 172:1) that they did > sleep together.I don't know how to square the Midrash with this Taz. It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they did more than that. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 16 12:18:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:18:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616165852.GH25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > > Returning to the example I used this morning, poultry with milk. > > One could explain this prohibition as preventing some minor spiritual > damage or danger of such damage that didn't rise to the level of > that avoided by basar bechalav. Or some other metaphysical and/or > psychospiritual explanation, or symbology, whatever your favorite > taamei hamitzvos system might happen to be. > If one assumes that the only problem is rebellion like the netivot then milk in poultry has no spiritual damage (the problem is gavra not cheftza) > > > : In particular what happens when the > reason > : for the derabbanan no longer exists. > > What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out > any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all > to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. > Not all takanot are to protect a deoraita. In any case the original question was why we are obligated by these takanot > > : One main concern is in monetary law, Much os the "baba-s" are rabbinic > : based on a monetary/social system that no longer exists > > Much of which isn't lemaaseh, since qinyan is determined by convention > anyway. > Not all kinyanim. More importantly not every monrtary takanah in shas has to do with kinyanim. There are loads of takanot for the good of commerce. In the change from an agragrian society to a business society to a high tech society much is no longer relevant -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 01:00:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:00:43 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:08 PM > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:36:54AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: >: In any case, with Rivka it doesn't necessarily mean romantic love. In fact, >: the common derasha about Yitzchak and Rivka is that the love only came >: after he married her and brought her into his tent. > I heard as a contrast between real love and love at first sight. > In any case, by the time they get to Gera, they are clearly romantically in > love. Unless the point about Boaz and Rus was about love at first sight in > particular, and we're just using the phnrase "romantic love" > in differing ways. Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman (40 years old, according to Hazal). Rut is a lonely woman. She knows that she is a social pariah, looked upon with suspicion as a Moabite and not likely to bask in the social glow of Naomi's connections because Naomi abandoned them all during the famine and has very little social capital herself. This is why she tells Naomi that she will go gleaning where they will let her--she's expecting to be thrown out of some places. This is also part of the reason Boaz tells her to stay in his field--he knows the social climate of his town. And Naomi is extremely surprised that Rut has come back with so much grain; it means that someone has helped her--not something Naomi expected under the circumstances. Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). The halakha was still in dispute well into the lifetime of David (Yevamot). Tov (aka Ploni Almoni) is practically in a panic when he refuses the marriage to Rut--he wants the field, but no strings attached "pen ash'hit et nahalati." Only Boaz has the guts to champion Rut's cause because he has the authority to do so, has the social clout to do so, he cares about her, and he is touched by her trust in him and her courage in coming to speak to him at the goren. Rut's acceptance into society only comes with her marriage to Boaz and Naomi's rehabilitation with her neighbors only comes with the birth of Oved. [Email #2 -micha] I believe that 'margelotav' is like 'merashotav' (Bereshit 28:11). The 'mem' is not part of the shoresh and I don't think it is a pun. It may be an oblique reference to halitza and, by extension, to yibum, a delicate way of indicating that, while what Naomi wants for Rut is not technically yibum, it is the yibum-like 'hakamat shem be'nahala'. See the perush of the Malbim on the mitzvah of yibum, where he compares the mitzvah to the yibum-like story of Yehuda and Tamar on the one hand, and Rut and Boaz on the other. When a man says to a woman, "You could marry anybody. Why have you picked me?" that is a compliment, not necessarily a statement of fact. Part of what impresses Boaz about what Rut has done is that she is willing to marry an old man when that goes against the nature of things. As Hazal say on this pasuk, a woman would prefer to marry a young, poor man rather than an old, rich man (gold diggers aside). Rut has set aside her natural inclinations in order to do hesed for her mother-in-law. The words may also be read as an expression of Boaz's sense of gratitude and wonder in finding his one-in-a- million woman (and Rut is indeed exceptional) especially at a time in his life when he did not expect to marry again. When Boaz encounters Rut he has just gotten up from shiva for his wife. Either way, Boaz is not commenting on Rut's bountiful marriage prospects, which are pretty much non-existent (as I argued in the previous post.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 05:18:28 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ilana Elzufon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:18:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: RnSP: Rut has lousy marriage prospects because everyone looks askance at her as > the weird shiksa daughter-in-law who comes back to Bet Lehem with her > mother-in-law. No one will consider marrying her because she is a Moabite > and people who marry Moabite women die (witness Mahlon and Khilyon) because > it's probably assur (except according to wild-eyed Reformim or silly > idealists like Boaz--the man in the street always knows better). > Does Boaz's idealism extend to not quite grasping how different his attitude towards Rut is from everyone else's? His response when she comes to the goren seems to indicate that he had assumed she had many marriage options from among the younger men. Shabbat Shalom, Ilana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:04:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:04:53 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> Message-ID: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. Ben On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > > It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same > bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they > did > more than that. > > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 06:57:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:57:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> On 06/17/2016 09:04 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > > Ben > > On 6/16/2016 9:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> >> It's 192:1, and where's the contradiction? He says they were in the same >> bed, which is already in the pasuk. He doesn't say or imply that they >> did more than that. > Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > Number 2, according to you what is the chiddush? That before the gezira > it was permitted to get into a bed with a woman without her counting 7 days? Yes, exactly. > That gets you right back to the Rambam/Ramban machloquet. No, it doesn't. It has no connection whatsoever to that machlokes, and I'm astonished that you see a connection. *Everyone* agrees that there is no issur mid'oraisa on a man and woman sharing a bed, even if she's *definitely* a niddah, let alone if it's only a possibility. Everyone agrees that nowadays it's assur mid'rabanan, even if she's only possibly a niddah. Everyone also agrees that nowadays there's an issur yichud even if she's definitely *not* a niddah. None of this has any connection to the machlokes about what level of issur is involved in an unmarried couple having sex. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 07:13:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 17 11:03:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! Message-ID: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise thought of on our own. He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: 1. A town has a single shochet. A younger shochet wants to move in to town with the latest "shochet" technology -- whatever that is. The point is that he thinks he can provide his services more efficiently and at less cost to the community. In this case, the gemara tells us (al pi this rav-writer) that the beis din of the town can decide that the town can't support the competition, and weigh the fact that the older shochet might be put out of business, etc. I.e., the beis din has a lot of room to enforce a non-competitive monopoly here. 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- competition that might provide a better product is more important than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. The point that this writer was making, again, is that this distinction is not something we might have thought on our own. I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 12:47:45 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simi Peters via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 22:47:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of the wheat harvest.) So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters -----Original Message----- From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 5:13 PM To: Rn Simi Peters ; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group Cc: Marty Bluke ; Rn Toby Katz Subject: Re: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:00:43AM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Haven't any of you read the second perek of megillat Rut? We're not : talking about a coup de foudre here. We're talking about the gradual : development of warm feelings between a much older man and a mature woman : (40 years old, according to Hazal). How gradual? Se'orah harvest is in Nisan (thus "Aviv") and Iyyar, chitah is in late Iyyar through early Tammuz. So the whole story has to fit in at most a month, when the two overlap. Add that they were harvesting long enough that Rus showing up at this point is odd. I think it's more plausible to picture Rus 2 through 4:12 all occuring in about a week. :-)BBii! -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 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 14:01:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:01:44 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> Message-ID: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same >> gezira. > > Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:39:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:39:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan Message-ID: R' Marty Bluke wrote: > If the creator rejects their legislation then it is isn't his will. I don't know what point you were trying to make, but I'm wondering if you considered the possibility that "lo bashamayim hee" might teach us that their legislation IS His will, by definition. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 14:35:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:35:23 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Thanks! -- Sholom _______________________________________________ It's complex! Enjoy http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 17 13:23:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allen Gerstl via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Avodah Digest, Vol 34, Issue 70 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:03:17 -0400 R' Sholom Simon wrote: > 2. Same scenario,but we're talking about a school, or a > teacher/educator. A younger rav wants to move in, because he thinks > he can do it better. In this case we davka want to encourage > competition, even though it might put the present teacher/school out > of business, because in this case -- teaching our children torah -- > competition that might provide a better product is more important > than the parnassa of who might be put out of business. . . . > > I gave the above example to a few educators last weekend, and they > all jumped out of their chairs asking me: where in the gemara is this?!?! > > I have no idea! Can anyone here provide a mareh mekomo to this > idea? (Am I even telling it over correctly? Has anyone heard this?) Please see http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/hasagatgevul.html The above issue is discussed at about footnote 22 (about three quarters of the way down in the article) and the Gemorah cited is Baba Batra 21b-22a I recall a similar question coming before the late Rav Gedaliah Felder, the posek of Toronto and that he told a group of us participating in a shiur that he gave. He had ruled as above. KT Eliyahu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:17:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:17:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> On 06/18/2016 05:01 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > On 6/17/2016 3:57 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >>> Number 1 he also brings Yehuda and Tamar when referring to the same gezira. >> >> Yes. So what? What do you think that proves? > > That the discussion is about sexual relations and not merely sleeping > in the same bed. Having stated that Yehuda and Tamar didn't violate > any prohibition because there wasn't a gezira makes any discussion > about sleeping in the same bed to be uber-unnecessary. Sorry, you're contradicting the very Taz you're invoking. He says *explicitly* that the issue he's discussing is being in the same bed, not anything else. Because as we all know it's forbidden for a man to be in the same bed as a niddah, even if they don't touch each other. And *that* is the question the Taz asks about Boaz and Ruth. If she was a niddah then how could they be in the same bed? And he answers that the gezera had not yet been made, so she wasn't a niddah. The same answer explains how Yehuda and Tamar could have sex; the gezera that would make her a niddah hadn't yet been enacted. The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything more into it. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:03:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gershon via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:03:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: I believe it's a Chazon Ish. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > thought of on our own. > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 20:45:56 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 23:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] minhag avos Message-ID: <20160619034555.GA2854@aishdas.org> Anyone interested in our perrennial about minhag avos and minhag hamaqom would likely be interested in R' David Brofsky's Teasers: ... Individual Customs The Torah teaches that in addition to the obligations and prohibitions imposed by the Torah, an individual has the ability to create personal obligations (Vayikra 5:4) or prohibitions (Bemidbar 30:3), known as nedarim and shevuot ... Family Customs As we shall see below, the Talmud teaches that one is also obligated to observe the customs of one's locality (minhag ha-makom), even if one leaves the place, until permanently relocating in another place. In addition to observing the custom of one's "place," is there a halakhically binding category of minhag avot, according to which one would be obligated to follow the customs of one's family? ... Local or Communal Customs As mentioned above, the Talmud (Pesachim 50a) teaches that one is obligated to observe the "minhag ha-makom", local custom. This obligation, as we shall see, is incumbent upon the residents of that place. Where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Passover until midday one may do [work]; where it is the custom not to do [work], one may not do [work]. ... Minhag and Pesak Halakhah In addition to being bound by local extra-halakhic customs, the Talmud teaches that if it is customary in a certain place to follow a specific halakhic view, that halakhic opinion becomes binding. For example, the Gemara[39] relates: ... Gut Voch! -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 Sun Jun 19 03:33:39 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:33:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and other differences between biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. <> what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to protect deoraisa laws. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 02:25:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 12:25:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> References: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 7:27 AM, wrote: > > > In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field > until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three > months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer > until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) > > > > *--Toby Katzt613k at aol.com ..* > That raises a whole other set of questions, namely when and how was Rus misgayer? Rashi at the beginning of the Megila claims that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women and Rus was only megayer later. Others claim that it can't be that Mahlon and Kilyon married non-Jewish women so it must be that they were megayer them. The Bach for example states that Rus was megayer to marry at the beginning and then later was megayer a second time lshem shamayim. R' Shternbuch in Moadim Uzmanim claims that they were minors and therefore when they came of age could be moche and therefore Rus was megayer a second time (ayen sham). Therefore it is pretty difficult to tie the 3 months into the geirus. In any case the din of waiting 3 months is a din drabbanan of havchana, that you should be able to tell the difference between a child conceived as a non-Jew versus a child conceived as a Jew. For all we know this din drabbanan had not yet been formulated in the days of Boaz and therefore is irrelevant. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 18 21:27:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:27:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth Message-ID: <4409e1.5c655665.44977943@aol.com> In a message dated 6/18/2016 3:48:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, familyp2 at actcom.net.il writes: So a conservative estimate is that they know each other at least a month, if not 6-8 weeks by the time she goes to the goren (which has to be at the end of the wheat harvest.) Kol tuv, Simi Peters >>>> In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:16:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:16:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> References: <20160616062919.GA30959@aishdas.org> <20160616160747.GG25395@aishdas.org> <000001d1c86e$5ff0cf30$1fd26d90$@actcom.net.il> <20160617141324.GA15860@aishdas.org> <001201d1c99a$519c9d60$f4d5d820$@actcom.net.il> Message-ID: <20160619121630.GC24863@aishdas.org> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 10:47:45PM +0300, Simi Peters via Avodah wrote: : Nope. Rut 1:22: They come into Bet Lehem at the beginning of the barley : harvest (mid-Nisan, let's say) and has to start gleaning right away or they : won't have anything to eat. Rut 2:23: Rut is in Boaz's field until the end : of the wheat harvest (say mid-Sivan. Remember, Shavuot is the beginning of : the wheat harvest.) ... I thought "ad kelos se'ir hase'orim uqetzir hachitim" referred to the end of the overlap time. Which is how I got such a tight estimate. You appear to be reading it "until the end of the barley harvest, [and then beyond, until] the end of the wheat harvest." Which, despite needing the bracketed insertion, is quite plausible. But not the assumption I had been working with. In any case, even in a matter of months, we would still be talking about romantic love. To my mind, any couple in love before the love that that grows out of building a life together are experiencing romantic love. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:27:47AM -0400, RnTK wrote: : In one of my books it says that from the time Rus came to Boaz's field : until the night in the goren it was three months. It had to be three months : because that's the minimum time from the time a woman is megayer until she : can get married. (Sorry I don't remember source.) The harvest season isn't three months, even according to RnSP's understanding of the pasuq. And that taqanah derabbanan almost certainly didn't exist yet. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Brains to the lazy micha at aishdas.org are like a torch to the blind -- http://www.aishdas.org a useless burden. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Bechinas haOlam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 05:07:40 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 08:07:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160619120740.GB24863@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 01:33:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> With a mitzvah derabbanan, the authority to make and obligation to :> obey the lav is de'oraisa but oso av once made is not. After all, HQBH :> said lo sasur, not lo sevasheil owf bechalav : : The question is why safeq derabannan is different than safe deoraisa and : other differences between : biblical and rabbinic laws. Id rabbinic laws are lo tasur then chicken and : milk should have the laws of a deoraisa. At this point our topic is broader than that. We are back one step at whether lo sasur is a derashah or an asmachta. Yes, if every derabbanan is "lo sasur", then we need to ask about safeiq derabbanan lequlah. But if not, what is the source of their authority-- REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" Which then raised the question of whether following chakhamim actually is living according to the design of the world, as REW holds, or :> What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out :> any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all :> to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. : what about chanuka, purim, hallel, netilyat yadaim etc whcih are not to : protect deoraisa laws. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. 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 Sun Jun 19 05:37:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:37:42 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: <> which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:21:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:21:08 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> Message-ID: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing before marrying a woman. When people get married, they don't just sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Ben On 6/19/2016 5:17 AM, Zev Sero wrote: > The Taz in no way implies that Boaz and Ruth > did more than be in the same bed, and it's impossible to read anything > more into it. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 12:37:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan Message-ID: < What I was saying in my earlier post is that I think the MC rules out any first-order taamei hamitzvos for dinim derabbanan, and they are all to protect / help implement de'oraisos which have real te'amim. Chanukah, Purim, and Hallel do "help implement de'oraisos". We are obligated to acknowledge and celebrate nissim and yeshu'os; chazal "merely" coined standard ways to do so. Netilas yadayim *is* there to protect deOraisos. Or at least was, back before we gave up an taharah. The whole notion that by default hands are tamei was a gezeirah, not a taqanah. In neither case do we need to assert that there was some metaphysical danger to avoid or metaphysical benefit we would have missed that the Torah hadn't already forced us to take into account. > I am not claiming anything metaphysical. It just seems to me that not all rabbinical decrees are to help a deoraisa. I am certainly not baki enough to go through every rabbinical law but certainly some others include eruvin, most importantly almost all berachot, davening (certainly according to those that disagree with Rambam), shevat brachot. As I said before there are loads of decrees in monetary matters that are not just nezikin including prozbul, takanat hashuk, bar metzra. Again I would have to review the 3 Babas to come up with a more detailed list. Even in hilchot shabbat/yomtov we have candle lighting and other aspects of oneg, much of the seder, -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 21:15:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 00:15:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> <576766B2.50408@sero.name> Message-ID: <57676DE5.2000701@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 11:44 PM, I wrote: > On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: >> Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the >> halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing >> before marrying a woman. > > There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. I just realised my meaning may not have been completely plain. What I meant by this is that they can have a chuppas niddah. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 19 20:44:50 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Boaz's nisayon with Ruth In-Reply-To: <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> References: <000001d1c746$bd9260a0$38b721e0$@actcom.net.il> <20160616063824.GC836@aishdas.org> <5762F8EB.7090006@sero.name> <8f322d4e-c7da-5394-f23a-bd4afb283f19@zahav.net.il> <576401CD.6090408@sero.name> <2b93b716-fff3-7ea1-cdac-2205ebda7f07@zahav.net.il> <57660EE5.9030502@sero.name> <6d6f7502-7849-c21c-2816-f17c6201f525@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576766B2.50408@sero.name> On 06/19/2016 03:21 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > Simple pshat of the halacha in question. The Taz is commenting on the > halacha that states that one has to wait 7 days after proposing > before marrying a woman. There is no such halacha, and he is not commenting on it. The halacha in question is that when a woman agrees to get married she is presumed to have become a niddah, and must therefore count 7 days like any niddah. (Note that it's not the proposal that triggers this, nor is it her verbal acceptance, but her internal decision to accept it.) The Taz quotes the Maggid Mishneh that this is midrabanan, and says that this explains two problems we would have if it were mid'oraisa. One is Yehuda and Tamar: *not* how they could have sex, but how she could have told him that she was tehora, when by definition she has just become temeiah. The second was Boaz and Ruth: how they could have slept in the same bed. He says this *explicitly* so I don't understand how anyone can possibly misunderstand it. > When people get married, they don't just > sleep in the same bed. That is where the question starts and > finishes, nothing about literally sleeping together. Again, you are contradicting the very Taz you are quoting. He says in so many words that the problem we would have with Boaz and Ruth, if this halacha were mid'oraisa, is that she entered his bed. How can you claim that's not his concern, when he says it is? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 11:42:59 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:42:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] derabbanan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160620184259.GC12092@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:37:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> REWasserman Hy"d basically says "lamah li qera, sevara hi?" : which again seems to make every derabanan a deoraisa I think quite the reverse. His saying that we follow the rabbis because not heading their advice would be stupid does not actually make the derabbanan mandatory. And I still think the Ramban is saying that the power of chazal to legislate is from lo sasur, but that does not elevate the product of their legislation to deOraisa. Thus his repeated reference to "zeh halav" in distinction to "'lo sasur' keshe'ar halavin shelaTorah". This makes a strong contrast to R' Mesamyah's position, "sheyeish bikhlal lav de-'lo sasur' kol mah shhu midivrei chakhamim..." One might employ parallel logic to REW's shitah, if it proves necessary. Remember that the Ramban's central problem isn't the same as the one which led us to this discussion. He is defending the idea that "lo sasur" is one of the 613, but (unlike the Behag) the particular mitzvos derabbanan are not each counted among them. Safeiq derabbanan lequlah is tangential to his main point, and more noted than explained. Also, I repeatedly contrasted the Meshekh Chokhmah's position (Devarim 17:11), that mitzvos derabbanan are "pragmatic", meaning the iqar is obedience, as opposed to conforming to Retzon Hashem, which I characterized as having metaphysical effect - or avoiding negtive effects. And since they're about obedience, borderline cases like safeiq derabbanan which are not rebellious can be meiqil, we do not have to worry about spiritual damage. If the mitzvah had inherent value aside from obedience, safeiq derabbanan lequlah would be a license to play Russian Roullete. I realized Retzon Hashem could also be framed less mystically in terms of desired ethics / relationship with Him, whether an asei to foster them or a lav to avoid flaws (a more rationalistic take on spiritual damage that is probably describing the same thing). Values and virtues. And in this formulation, there is no clear line between laws that Chazal would set up to implement a general deOraisa din (eg pirsumei nisa and ner Chanukah) and laws that implement His values. The broader mitzvos get kind of mussar-y / valu-ish. Like ve'asisa hayashar vehatov. On a related topic, 20 agurot from AhS Yomi. YD 201:206 (there are 218 se'ifim in the siman). There is a question whether a miqvah where most of the water is mayim she'uvim is pasul deOraisa or derabannan, or if even a miqvah that is entirely mayim she'uvim is "only" pasul miderabbanan. 3 positions: pasul deOraisa at rov, pasul deOraisa when there is entirely she'uvim, or never pasul deOraisa. The pesul derabbnan starts at 3 log is they were poured in before the 40 se'ah were complete; rov otherwise -- unless rov is deOraisa The Toras Kohanim learns the pesul of mayim she'uvim from "akh ma'yan uvor miqeih mayim" just as a maayan is made by G-d, so must the gathered water of a miqvah. But it is possible that this is an asmachta, or that it's a derashah about using actual tamei keilim but generalizing to she'uvim is asmachta, or... (See se'if 17) Now the relevant bit. In se'if 210, the AhS opines (nir'eh LAD) that because there is an asmachta, we cannot simply say safeiq derabbanan lequlah. Thus ruling out the Rambam's idea that asmachtos are just mnemonic and polemic tools; he is saying they actually change the authority of the derabbanan. And if could change whether the iqar is obedience, limiting that possibility only to dinim derabbanan that have no asmachtos. IFF RYME buys into that idea at all. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of micha at aishdas.org heights as long as he works his wings. http://www.aishdas.org But if he relaxes them for but one minute, Fax: (270) 514-1507 he plummets downward. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 08:31:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:31:48 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ie the current issue is about one who has specifically violated tora laws related to even haezer related issues. i wonder if crimes against secular governments would fall under the same type of reasoning , which as i understand , is only due to a 'bizayon hatora' . it would seem that any type of crime might fit that bill.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 12:45:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:45:55 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: , <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> there is a topic in the news currently about whether it is appropriate to learn the tora of one who has been found wanting in areas of depravity. i wonder if this topic could be broadened to include secular criminal offenses. ------------------------------------ "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). 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 Mon Jun 20 13:57:43 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:57:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: https://torahdownloads.com/player.html?ShiurID=24398 r reuven feinstein [around minute 35 ] responds on this tora umesora Q and A on how the haredi teacher should deal with Hallel on YH. thiswil presumably be more of a bedieved, since lechatchila schools that celebrate YH shouldn't have to rely on teachers that don't on there faculty, and increasingly may not need to.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 20 15:10:46 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:10:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: tora of convicts In-Reply-To: <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> References: <46f1a3e966524ba8b9eb9ce73e19ebe3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <76B58B00-2F64-49A0-800E-640CE92B9686@sibson.com> Message-ID: <20160620221046.GA32539@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 07:45:55PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : "If the rabbi is as an angel of G-d, learn Torah from him; if he is : not as an angel of G-d, do not learn Torah from him" (Chagiga 15b). R' Shimon Shkop discusses this gemara near the end of the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher. Leshitaso, there is a difference between a rebbe from whom "yevaqeish Torah mipihu" and learning from someone else, who could even be an Acher. But to my mind it is worth knowing and contemplating what our Sages said on Chagiga folio 15b. How could Rabbi Meir receive Torah from the mouth of Acheir [the former Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya, after he became a heretic]. Doesn't Rabba bar bar Chana quote R' Yochanan [in Chagiga as saying] "What does it mean when it says 'For the kohein's lips should keep knowledge; they should see Torah from his lips, for he is the angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts" (Malachi 2:7)? If the rav is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts, seek Torah from his mouth. And if not, do not seek Torah from his mouth." And the Talmud concludes, "There is no question this [Rabbi Meir studying under Acheir] is with someone great, this [the verse] is of someone of smaller stature." It is worth understanding according to this how Rabbi Yochanan spoke without elaboration, since he speaks only of the smaller statured, not the greats. One may say that we should be exacting in that Rabbi Yochanan said, "seek Torah from his mouth" and not "learn from him". For in truth, one who learns from his peer does not learn from the mouth of the person who is teaching him, but listens and weighs on the scales of his mind, and then he understands the concept. This is not learning "from the mouth of" his teacher, but from the mind of the teacher. "Torah from the mouth" is only considered accepting the concepts as he heard them, with no criticism. And it was by this idea that Rabbi Yochanan spoke about accepting Torah from the mouth [i.e. uncritically] only if the rabbi is similar to an angel of Hashem, L-rd of Hosts. And according to this, in Rabbi Yochanan's words is hinted a distinction between who is of smaller stature and who is great. The one of smaller stature will learn Torah from the mouth, for he is unable to decide what to draw near and want to keep away. Whereas a person of great stature who has the ability to decide [critically] does not learn Torah from [someone else's] mouth. Similarly, it's appropriate to alert anyone who contemplates the books of acharonim that they should not "learn Torah from their mouths", they shouldn't make a fundamental out of everything said in their words before they explore well those words. Something similar to a reminder of this idea can be learned from what the gemara says in Bava Metzia, chapter "One Who Hires Workers" [85b]. Rabbi Chiya said, "I made it so that the Torah would not be forgotten from Israel." It explains there that he would plant linen, spread out nets [made of tat linen, thereby] hunt deer, made parchment [of their hides], and wrote [on them] chumash texts. This hints that whatever is in our power to prepare from the beginning of the Torah, it is incumbent on us to do ourselves, according to the ability that was inherited to us to explore and understand. And not to rely on the words of the gedolim who preceded us. 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 Tue Jun 21 02:57:08 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:57:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Potential Role of Orthodox Judaism in a "Fractured Republic" Message-ID: <20160621095708.GA20821@aishdas.org> [Rabbi] "Meir Soloveichik on Yuval Levin's 'The Fractured Republic'" or https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/meir-soloveichik-yuval-levins-fractured-republic ... Levin is undoubtedly correct about the state of American religion, both in diagnosis and prescription, and reading his book has made me more convinced that it is at this moment that American Orthodox Judaism may have found a unique calling. As Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik has pointed out, religious Jews have always sought to embody Abraham's identification of himself in the Bible as a ger vetoshav--a stranger and a neighbor, aware of what makes one different while engaging the world and, like Abraham in Canaan, speaking candidly and eloquently about why they are different. Last summer, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who is also a devout Christian, struck by how so many traditionalists feel that they now live in a culture not welcoming to them... As I argued in a recent symposium in Mosaic, the Jewish example can lead faith communities in a joint project to safeguard an America that will allow all of us to be "strangers and neighbors" --to fight for our religious freedom and distinctiveness, while also articulating a conservative vision of the American idea--and thereby illustrating how traditionalists can, in Levin's words, "live out their faiths and their ways in the world." 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 Tue Jun 21 14:13:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:13:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tora of convicts Message-ID: <20160621211321.GA8586@aishdas.org> RGS posted a link to on Torah Musings: Jewish Action HALACHAH AND THE FALLEN RABBI: Q & A WITH RABBI HERSHEL SCHACHTER JA Mag | June 4, 2015 in Jewish Law By Avrohom Gordimer ... Jewish Action: Can one still follow the piskei halachah of a fallen rabbi? Rabbi Schachter: No. The pasuk in Navi (Malachi 2:7), as expounded by the gemara (Moed Katan 17a), says that a Torah teacher must be sinless and righteous like a malach (angel). According to the Torah, we only follow a rabbi's ruling if he properly models Torah behavior. If he is a ba'al aveirah, if he knowingly violates Biblical or rabbinic laws, he is not qualified to teach and render halachic rulings. When members of the public become aware of his improper behavior, they may no longer rely on his judgment for any rulings, unless it can be verified that such rulings were rendered before the rabbi's sinful conduct began. Since it is often not possible to ascertain when these rulings were rendered, one should ask another rabbi for a new pesak. Although people use [Marcus] Jastrow's [Aramaic] dictionary [for Talmudic and Midrashic terminology], and I was told that Jastrow was not Orthodox, that is different because that is an issue of translation, not pesak (halachic adjudication). For a pesak, a rabbi needs to consider all issues before him, and weigh and evaluate them. It is very different than mere translation. To issue halachic rulings, one must be part of the chachmei haMesorah (Torah scholars who follow the Torah's traditions). A rabbi who sins, especially if he commits a crime, is certainly not in this category. JA: What does one do with the sefarim written by such a rabbi? RS: They should not be used. Since his sefarim include his ideas and rulings, they fit into the prohibition against studying Torah from someone who is unfit due to his improper behavior. Any time someone writes a sefer, he fleshes out and resolves apparently contradictory passages. This is called being machria--providing one's own resolutions in Torah study. The type of person we are discussing is not qualified to be machria and, therefore, his sefarim cannot be used. If it can be verified that the sefarim and the halachic rulings were issued before this person's sinful behavior began, only then can they be relied upon and quoted. JA: Can we/should we continue to cite divrei Torah in his name? RS: We are not allowed to do so. The gemara (Avodah Zarah 35b) says that if a rabbi violates halachah, one cannot say divrei Torah in his name. The statements found in the Talmud in the name of Elisha Ben Abuya were made when he was still committed to Torah observance and belief (see Tosafot, Sotah 12b). If it would appear that the books and articles of the fallen rabbi were written before he began his sinful behavior, they may be used. ... This follows something we've noticed about RHS's position in the past. He holds that pesaq involves the poseiq's full Weltenschaung. To the extent that someone should be looking to posqim from his own camp in particular. >From Kol haMevaser (a school machashav newspaper from YU), 2010, by "Staff" http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/07/an-interview-with-rabbi-hershel-schachter An Interview with Rabbi Hershel Schachter ... Who is qualified to give a pesak Halakhah (halakhic ruling)? What makes his ruling binding upon a large group of people? ... A person has to have a strong tradition in Torah logic. Common sense has its own system of logic and so does Halachah. And to know Talmudic, halachic logic, you have to be learned in all areas of Torah. A posek cannot "specialize" in one area of Halachah alone. In order to be an expert in medical Halachah, you have to know Nashim, Nezikin, Kodashim, and Tohoros, because everything in Halachah is interconnected and interrelated. ... Which characteristics should a person look for when choosing a personal/family posek? Is it appropriate to choose one posek for one area of Halakhah and another for a different area? Is it problematic, halakhically or otherwise, for someone to ask she'eilot to a rabbi other than the leader of his or her shul/kehillah? The Mishnah says "aseh lecha rav" - you have to pick a rav to paskn all of your she'eilos. He has to first and foremost be very knowledgeable.... Second, he has to be humble. The Gemara says that we paskn like the Beis Hillel against the Beis Shammai, because, among other reasons, the Beis Hillel were more humble than the Beis Shammai... He also has to be an honest person. Sometimes you have a rabbi who is a politician and says one thing to one person and another thing to a different person, giving everyone the answer that he wants to hear. That is obviously inappropriate. Finally, he must be a yere Shamayim (God-fearer). The Gemara talks about why the pesakim of talmidei chachamim are binding and says that it is because "sod Hashem li-yere'av" - God gives the secrets of understanding the Torah to those who fear Him. Usually, we assume that the more learned one is, the more yir'as Shamayim he has. If, however, the rabbi of my choice is very learned but seems, unfortunately, to lack yir'as Shamayim, he is not ra'ui (worthy) to receive divine assistance in figuring out what the dinim are. And one off-topic teaser: What does it mean that koah de-hetteira adif (the power of permissibility is greater) and how does one apply that rule? How does this principle accord with concepts like ha-mahamir, tavo alav berakhah (blessing should descend upon the stringent) and yere Shamayim yetse yedei sheneihem (a God-fearer tries to fulfill both)? When, if ever, is it a good idea to take upon oneself a personal humra (stricture)? (REMT already posted the same answer here years ago...) Also, there is , which RET brought to the chevrah's attention in Feb 2014 and RAM transcribed parts of. But then we were talking about that shiur's primary subject -- "Da'as Torah - What are its Halachic Parameters in Non-Halachic Issues?" 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 Wed Jun 22 00:56:55 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:56:55 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers Message-ID: <> If I read ir correctly this is from 2008 (not that the halachot have changed). In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. Today with the abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 09:25:01 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:25:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes. Now that makes sense in a neoplatonic framework, but it needs a new foundation today. This is a particular issue because in Ish HaHalacha RYBS describes these same ideas as a priori categories, and a good Kantian would attribute a priori categories, not to an objective realm, but to the structure of human thought. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 22 12:54:27 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:54:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: , <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) Kol tuv Joel rich Sent from my iPad On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: I've been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? David Riceman _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 22 14:55:02 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:55:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: I read it. It?s very good, and it?s what prompted me to reread Uvikashtem Misham. It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious justification. The book you cited is RYB?s exposition of the Rambam?s views, but UM is his exposition of his own views. Those are the views that require justification. DR > On Jun 22, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > > You might want to talk to Lawrence Kaplan: > aimonides- Between Philosophy and Halacha -Lawrence Kaplan > > This book is based on a series of lectures on the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to The Perplexed) given by The Rav (Rabbi JB Soloveitchik) at The Bernard Revel Graduate School. It is very heavy lifting and is appropriate in the reviewer's opinion for those with a deep interest in philosophy (i.e. not the reviewer J) > Kol tuv > Joel rich > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:25 PM, David Riceman via Avodah > wrote: > >> I?ve been rereading Uvikeshtem Misham by RYBS, and I find it more puzzling than I recall on my last reading. >> >> Did he (or someone else) discuss this somewhere? >> >> David Riceman >> _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Jun 22 19:24:31 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:24:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <576B485F.8020001@sero.name> On 06/22/2016 05:55 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: > It?s perfectly respectable for someone in the Rambam?s era to use > neoplatonic ideas without comment. Today it requires serious > justification. Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they make testable claims that can be refuted? If you mean merely that it's no longer fashionable, why should that matter? We Jews have never let fashion dictate our philosophies, and why should we? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 03:29:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:29:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] a priori ideas in the "mind" of God In-Reply-To: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> References: <5AF417F4-EA9B-41DF-9465-FCFD401D8D68@optimum.net> Message-ID: <20160623102930.GA24267@aishdas.org> [I also address Zev's question in this post. If yuou are only interested in that, scrol down to the line of """"""...) On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:25:01PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote: : The problem is this. RYBS postulates that our connection with God comes : from cognizing ideas which God also cognizes... From: http://www.aishdas.org/asp/akrasia , where I complained more of the Rambam's placing knowledge as more central to human redemption than ethic. I also noted indication that RYBS understood the Rambam differently. I simply didn't understand how, given the citations I quoted. In "Text & Texture", the RCA blog, R' Alex Sztuden suggests answers from R' JB Soloveitchik's writings to questions given on R' Soloveitchik's 1936 final exam in Jewish Philosophy. (Thereby showing that these questions were ones R' Soloveitchik considered during much of his life.) The first question, which had two parts: I.a. What is the basic idea of the "Intellectualist Theory" of the religious act? In Halakhic Mind (41-43), the Rav distinguishes between 3 different views of emotional states (and by implication, of religious states): 1. Emotions are non-cognitive. They do not express any facts or statements about the world. In a footnote, the Rav cites Hume as a typical example of this view: "Hume denied the intentional character of our emotional experiences: `A passion is an original existence...and contains not any representative quality which renders it a copy of any other existence or modification. When I am angry, I am actually possessed with the passion, and in that emotion have no more a reference to any other object, than when I am thirsty, or sick or five feet tall...'" (116, footnote 49). 2. Emotions have a cognitive component. In fact, "every intentional act is implicitly a cognitive one...by way of simple illustration, the statement `I love my country' may be broken down into three components: I. There exists a country - predication; II. This object is worthy of my love - valuation; [and] III. I love my country - consummation of the act." (43). According to the Rav, I. ("There exists a country") is a statement of fact that is in effect contained by and in the emotion. Emotions are not irrational outpourings of the heart. They make claims about the world. 3. Emotions are cognitive, but they are confused ideas. This is the Intellectualist Theory of Emotions (and religious states). "Of course, the intellectualistic school, regarding the emotional and volitional activities as modi cogitandi, had to admit some relationship between them and the objective sphere. Owing, however to the contempt that philosophers and psychologists had for the emotional act which they considered an idea confusa..." b. What are the conclusions? Criticism. The intellectualist theory correctly perceived that emotions were cognitive, but incorrectly assumed that they were inferior forms of cognition, confused ideas. For the Rav, all psychic states are intentional, and religious acts therefore contain a cognitive component, subject to elaboration, refinement and critique on its own terms. In RYBS's understanding of the Rambam, the line I am making between perfection of virtue and perfetion of knowledge simply isn't there, or is at best blurry. Which is implied by the use of the word da'as in naming "hilkhos dei'os". And yet in my blog post, I have all that counterevidence. Like the beginning of the Moreh, where he talks about the need for moral and emotional perfection being a consequence of the eitz hada'as, inferior to the prior bechitah based on emes alone, or his ranking of human perfections at the close of the Moreh, his comparing Aristo to prophets, etc... In his interview with R/Dr Alan Brill, it appears that R/Dr Lawrence Kaplan, who produced the book built from RYBS's notes on the Moreh, doesn't see RYBS's take in the Rambam aither. From or https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/rav-soloveitchik-on-the-guide-of-the-perplexed-edited-by-lawrence-kaplan Hermann Cohen's modern reading of Maimonides as ethical and Platonic was instrumental in the 20th century return to Maimonides and especially Soloveitchik's understanding of Maimonides. This lectures in this volume show how Soloveitchik both used and differed with Cohen. ... Kaplan notes that Soloveitchik's readings of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and Aquinas are "highly controversial" meaning that they are less confrontations with the texts of those thinkers and more the reception and rejection as found in early 20^th century thinkers. His German Professors considered idealism as superseding the classics and Russell considered science and positivism as superseding the ancient. For these works, Maimonides was relegated to the medieval bin. Soloveitchik was going to save the great eagle. ... For Soloveitchik concern for others and responsibility for fellows as hesed is the inclusion of the other in the cosmic vision. Just as God is inclusive of the world and knows the world because it is part of Him, the Talmud scholar knows about people through his universal understanding. Kaplan points out how this is completely the opposite of Jewish thinkers such as Levinas where you actually confront the other and through the face of a real other person gains moral obligation. (I am certain that Soloveitchik pantheistic-Idealist view of ethics will elicit some comments. ) ... 2) Could you elaborate on the claim that Maimonides considers Halakhah as secondary to philosophy? How does R. Soloveitchik counter this approach? This is an old objection to Maimonides. The claim is that Maimonides follows Aristotle in maintaining that knowledge is superior to morality, both moral virtue and moral action, and, furthermore, in arguing that only intellectual knowledge possesses intrinsic value, while morality possesses only instrumental worth, serving only as a steppingstone to attaining intellectual perfection. From this it would follow that Halakhah, dealing with action, is of lesser worth than science, and that Talmud Torah, that is, the study of Halakhah, is inferior to the study of the sciences. The Rav--inaccurately by the way--quotes Graetz as stating that Maimonides in the Guide "sneered at halakhic scholarship." The Rav counters this objection by claiming that Maimonides distinguishes between two stages of ethics: pre-theoretical ethics, ethical action that precedes knowledge of the universe and God, and post-theoretical ethics, ethical action that follows upon knowledge of the universe and God. Pre-theoretical ethics is indeed inferior to theory and purely instrumental; however, post-theoretical ethics is ethics as the imitation of God's divine attributes of action of Hesed (Loving Kindness), Mishpat, (Justice), and Tzedakah (Righteousness), the ethics referred to at the very end of the Guide, and this stage of ethics constitutes the individual's highest perfection. 3) It sounds as if here Soloveitchik is just following Hermann Cohen. The Rav, as he himself admits, takes the basic distinction between pre-theoretical ethics and post- theoretical ethics from Hermann Cohen, but his understanding of the imitation of the divine attributes of action involved in post-theoretical ethics differs from Cohen. Cohen, following Kant's thought, distinguishes sharply between practical and theoretical reason, ethics and the natural order, "is" and "ought." For Cohen, God's attributes of action do not belong to the realm of causality, but to that of purpose; they are not grounded in nature, but simply serve as models for human action. What Cohen keeps apart, the Rav--and here he is, in my view and the view of others, for example, Avi Ravitzky and Dov Schwartz, more faithful to the historical Maimonides--brings together. For the Rav, the main divine attribute of action is Hesed, God's abundant lovingkindness, His "practicing beneficence toward one who has no right" to such beneficence. The prime example of Hesed, for Maimonides, is the creation of the world. This act of creation is both an ethical act, whereby God freely wills the world into existence, and an ontological act, an overflow of divine being, whereby God brings the world into being by thinking it. However, the Rav goes beyond what Maimonides states explicitly by maintaining that the deepest meaning of God's Hesed is that he not only confers existence upon the world, but continuously sustains it by including the existence of reality as whole in His order of existence. 4) Is this the basis of Soloveitchik's claim that Maimonides is a pantheist? I think he means "panentheist". But here we drift from the topic, so I am ending my too-length quote. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:24:31PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Why? What scientific discovery between then and now has discredited : neoplatonism? *Can* a school of philosophy be discredited? Do they : make testable claims that can be refuted? The law of conservation of momentum. Aristo's entire metaphysics is tied to his notion in physics that objects move when they are given impetus, and continue moving until the impetus runs out. Imetus is imparted by intellects. Intellect is what brings something min hakoach el hapo'al. Thus the Rambam's belief that the spheres -- the spinning transparent shells of quintessence in which the heavenly objects are embedded -- were intellects. Because otherwise, they would have had to stop spinning by now. And his identification of mal'akhim with Aristotle's chain of intellects, making them the metaphysical forces behind natural events and the metaphysics by which Hashem's decisions reach the world. But now we replaced the spheres with orbits, mathematical non-entities, the product of momentum and the gravity of the bodied involved. So yes, because Philosophy included Natural Philosophy, and mataphysics wend hand-in-hand with Physics to create a single picture of how the world works, Aristotilian neo-Platonism like the Rambam's philosophy did make testable claims. And those were falsified. 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 Jun 23 03:33:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:33:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mareh mekomo -- talmud torah rules! In-Reply-To: References: <20160617180315.QCFK22126.fed1rmfepo101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo209.cox.net> Message-ID: Chazon Ish Emunah & Bitochon perek 3 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Gershon via Avodah wrote: > I believe it's a Chazon Ish. > On Jun 17, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah < > avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > > I remember reading a generalized essay on why learning the gemara was > > good for you, and the writer was exploring the idea (making the point) > > that the gemara explains to us values that we wouldn't have otherwise > > thought of on our own. > > > > He gave (if I'm remembering correctly) the following example: > ... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 04:45:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:45:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> How would you analyze the amount of "bother" you should go to in Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? 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 Thu Jun 23 08:17:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:17:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <576BFD98.9040206@sero.name> On 06/23/2016 07:45 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in > Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to > get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the > benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether > the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 12:19:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:19:51 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning Message-ID: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the bracha before Krias Shema. The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved only through learning Torah. Without limud haTorah, any feelings of longing that a person may have for the Jewish way of life as practiced in the old kehillos of the towns and villages of Europe do not represent the love or fear of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Rather, they are mostly nostalgic sentiments, somewhat like that which is expressed by the song "Mein Shtetele Belz. " They have no real connection with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Such a connection can be achieved only through limud ha Torah. One cannot fear or love something that is only an idea. By learning Torah, we recognize the reality of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and, consequently, can achieve both ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem. Love and fear are really contradicting relationships. One either fears another, or loves him. Love draws one to something, and fear repels one from it. We therefore ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu in this tefillah that in our relationship to Him, He allow us to have both sentiments, that of our love for Him, together with our fear of violating His will. This is the meaning of v'ychad levavainu? To "fear" HaKadosh Baruch Hu does not mean that one must constantly tremble before Him. Rather, it means that one is to be afraid to violate His will. This is similar to the fear a driver has of going through a red light, which does not mean that he sits in his car and trembles. On the contrary, he can be very relaxed, while at the same time being acutely aware of the danger to his life should he go through that red light. This "fear" actually makes driving very safe. Similarly, we ask HaKadosh Baruch Hu to unify our hearts, l'yachad. to love Him, while at the same time, to make us afraid of transgressing His will. YL __________________________ BTW, I highly recommend the sefer Rav Schwab on Prayer. It gives many insights into our davening that I was most certainly not aware of. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 23 13:56:32 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:56:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Only Through Torah Learning In-Reply-To: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> References: <1466709565152.76077@stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20160623205631.GA15414@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 07:19:51PM +0000, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote: : The following is from Rav Schwab on Prayer page 300 where he comments : on v'ychad levavainu l'ahavah u'l'yereh shmecha which we say in the : bracha before Krias Shema. : The combination of ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem can be achieved : only through learning Torah... Rav Shimon Shkop writes: The first Tablets were made by G-d, like the body of writing as explained in the Torah. The latter Tablets were made by man [Moses], as it says "Carve for yourself two stone tablets." (Exodus 34:1) Tablets are things which cause standing and existence, that it's not "letters fluttering in the air." Since they were made by Hashem, they would stand eternally. But the second ones, which were man-made, only exist subject to conditions and constraints. The beginning of the receiving of the Torah through Moses was a symbol and sign for all of the Jewish people who receive the Torah [since]. Just as Hashem told Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone Tablets", so too it is advice for all who receive the Torah. Each must prepare Tablets for himself, to write upon them the word of Hashem. According to his readiness in preparing the Tablets, so will be his ability to receive. If in the beginning or even any time after that his Tablets are ruined, then his Torah will not remain. This removes much of Moses' fear, because according to the value and greatness of the person in Awe/Fear of Hashem and in middos, which are the Tablet of his heart, this will be the measure by which heaven will give him acquisition of Torah. And if he falls from his level, by that amount he will forget his Torah, just as our sages said of a number of things that cause Torah to be forgotten. About this great concept our sages told us to explain the text at the conclusion of the Torah, "and all the great Awe Inspiring acts which Moses wrought before the eyes of all of Israel." (Devarim 34:12, the closing words of the Torah) This is in a long Litvisher tradition that yir'as Shamayim is a precondition t being able to learn. Not, as Rav Schwap is quoted here, a consequence. Although a positive feedback cycle is certainly a possibility. For example, from Nefesh haChaim 4:5: According to the vast arrangement of the silo of yir'ah that the person prepared for himself, it is through that arrangement that the grain of Torah will be able to enter and be protected within him, according to how much he strengthened his silo. It is [like] a father who divides grain for his sons. He divides and gives each one a measure of grain to match what the son's silo can hold, which he [the son] prepared beforehand. For even if the father wishes and his hand is open to give him more, the son cannot receive more since his silo is not big enough to hold more. So too the father cannot now give him more. And if the son did not prepare even a small silo, then also the father can not give him anything at all for he has no guarded place where it will remain with him. So too Hashem, may His name be blessed: His "Hand" is open, as it were, to constantly bestow every person according to his reward with much wisdom and extra understanding when it will be preserved by them and will be tied onto the slate of their hearts. Everything [is given] according to the volume of one's "silo." And if a person does not prepare even a small silo, which is that he does not, heaven forbid, have within him any yir'ah whatsoever for Him, may He be blessed, so too He, may He be blessed, will not bestow any wisdom at all, since it will not be preserved by him. For his Torah would become disgusting, heaven forbid, as our Rabbis, whose memories are a blessing, said. It is about this that the verse says, "the beginning of wisdom is yir'as Hashem," (Tehillim 111). This relates directly to another post of yours of quotes from RSoP. "Rav Shimon Schwab on Women Learning Torah", thread at http://j.mp/28Q172y (or http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=R#RAV%20SHIMON%20SCHWAB%20ON%20WOMEN%20LEARNING%20TORAH ) In Feb you wrote: > The following is from pages 274 - 275 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. ... > A woman who learns Torah does not become greater in yiras Shamayim > because of it. True, she may become very learned in Torah, but this is > not the object of talmud Torah. A woman may become a great philosopher > or scientist, but Torah is not philosophy or science. Torah is the way > Hakadosh Baruch Hu communicates with us. > Only because talmud Torah is a mitzvah, a positive commandment for man, > can it be a means to connect to Hashem and thereby increase his yiras > Shamayim. Because a woman has no specific mitzvah of talmud Torah, she > cannot utilize it as a means to increase her many ways of connection > to Hashem. And at some point I wrote: > I realize I do not have clarity on what RSS is referring to when he says > "yir'as Shamayim". > To the Ramchal is means by default yir'as hacheit, which in turn means > fear of doing the wrong thing because it's against His Will. (In contrast > to yir'as ha'onesh, fear of the sin's punishment, which is not real > yir'as Shamayim.) According to the Ramchal, also included in yir'ah is > yir'as haromemus. But those are all feelings. How could we make a blanket > statement ike "women do not learn to fear sinning or how awe-inspiring > G-d is by learning Torah"? (Whereas men can, or in True Scotsman style: > If a man didn't gain yir'as Shamayim, it wasn't *really* learning.) > So it seems to me RSS is speaking about something more specific. Perhaps > a relationship with ol mitzvos, which is why it is only generated by > a metzuvah ve'oseh performance. But even that would be iffy, because a > person can learn an emotional stance by imagining what it would be like > if... So that by learning, if the woman could empathetically imagine > what it would be like to be a man and compelled to learn as a mitzvah > in itself, wouldn't she still learn the yir'ah behind ol mitzvos? Now, that theory too has to be scrubbed. It looks like RSS is speakiong very speicifcally about fulfilling an obligation of talmud Torah. It's not a function of obligation in general (pg 300) nor of talmd Torah without the chiyuv (pg 274). So I REALLY have no clarity. 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 Fri Jun 24 02:14:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:14:04 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] YH with haredi teachers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <36431880-c73a-a5c8-e53d-25218ec972ef@zahav.net.il> There is also an ideological element to the reduced numbers. Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook strongly pressured the DL schools to not hire chareidi teachers (for obvious reasons). Ben On 6/22/2016 9:56 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > In Israel it was once common to find charedi teachers in DL schools. > Today with the > abundance of hesder yeshivot and seminars like Herzog it is rare for a > DL school to hire a charedi teacher. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:17:06 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:17:06 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in Monsey. Ben On 6/23/2016 1:45 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in Eretz > Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to get > birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the benefit > of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether the mitzvah > is on the cohanim alone? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 02:01:21 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:01:21 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birkhat cohanim Message-ID: <> Certainly not a mitzvah in the formal sense of the word. However Rav Melamed explains that the chazzan (or someone in the congregation) calls out "cohanim" to signify that we wish to accept the blessing and only then can the cohanim begin see http://ph.yhb.org.il/02-20-07/ -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 05:20:34 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:20:34 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. > Therefore it would make no difference to you if you daven there or in > Monsey. > Ben The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. [Email #2. -micha] >> On 06/23/2016 07:45 Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? > Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > Zev The Haflaah among others. Listen here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/858947 Rabbi Ezra Schwartz-Duchening for non kohanim Kol tuv Joel Rich From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 06:46:04 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <576D399C.3070707@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 05:17 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > I thought that they blessed AM Yisrael, not the people in the minyan. But only those who are in front of them, not those behind them. So I suppose any kohen, on any day, is only blessing half of Am Yisrael. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:12:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:12:13 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <796dee1c8b704e09899c75aba2847127@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <31e4b27f-8116-6c4d-07e3-9edcdfa4745f@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <6deabf95-1f8d-0240-e958-c2518f9d8be0@zahav.net.il> On 6/24/2016 2:20 PM, Rich, Joel wrote: > The Am shebesadot iiuc doesn't include everyone-for example if one > stood in shul behind the cohanim, they are not included. Because the people behind the cohenim are able to walk a couple of feet and choose not to whereas anyone else is considered anoos and therefore they are included in the bracha. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 10:17:13 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:17:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: >> How would you analyze the amount of ?bother? you should go to in >> Eretz Yisrael to attend a minyan where there are kohanim in order to >> get birchat hakohanim? Differentiate between the mitzvah and the >> benefit of the bracha. Does it turn on the machloket as to whether >> the mitzvah is on the cohanim alone? >Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the kohanim. EMT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:12:35 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 01:17 PM, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote: >>Which machlokes? Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed? > > The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzva 378 quotes (at second hand) the Sefer > Chareidim that it is a mitzva on Yisreilim to be blessed by the > kohanim. Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:10:48 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:10:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan In-Reply-To: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> References: <20160608222545.GB2275@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20160624181048.GA19921@aishdas.org> In AhS yomi today, YD 240:34, RYME discusses the issur of listening to a parent who tells you to violate the din. One cannot discuss achei dokheh lav because the pasuq excludes such commands from a parent's authority. He ends: And memela, also in an issur derabbanan it is against the Torah. For HQBH commanded not to veer from anything the chakhamim say. So, those who say lo sasur is only an asmakhta for obeying a mitzvah derabbanan, do they say kibud av does include an order to violate a lave derabbanan? Or do they have a different sevara? :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:15:11 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:15:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] how to fix a mamzer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160624181511.GB19921@aishdas.org> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 05:54:09PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : see YD 240 where it is a disagreement between the mechaber and Ramah. The : Ramah paskens like the Tur, Mordechai, Rabbenu Tam and Haghaos Mordechai : that one need honor a wicked father only if he does teshuva See also AhS se'if 39, who says the same, but in more detail. The Lekhem Mishnah lmits the Machloqes to while the father is alive, saying that even the Rambam does not require KaVA of an evil parent fter their petirah. The Kesef Limits it to mishel ha'av, the son of an evil parent is not chayav lehachzir lo mishelo. And he believes Rashi explains the gemara in a manner consistent with the Tur's position. :-)BBii! -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 Fri Jun 24 11:18:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:18:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> Message-ID: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev for a berakhah? :-)BBii! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jun 24 11:22:36 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:22:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 02:12:35PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Thank you. According to this opinion should we be saying a bracha? > : Surely we can't be yotzei with the kohanim's bracha, since they say > : "asher kideshanu bikdushaso shel Aharon", and we were not. > > Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev > for a berakhah? Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for women according to the BeHaG? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 01:54:20 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:54:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] birchat kohanim Message-ID: R' Zev Sero asked: "Who holds that there is a mitzvah to be blessed?" The Biur Halacha at the beginning of Siman 128 quotes from the Sefer Charedim that there is a mitzva on the tzibur to be blessed by the kohanim. The Haflaah in Kesubos 24b uses this Charedim to explain why it is prohibited for a non-Kohen to go up to duchen, He says that if a Yisrael goes up to duchess he is being mevatel his mitzva of receiving the beracha. See also the Minchas Chinuch 378 who quotes this Charedim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jun 25 11:05:23 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:05:23 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] derabban In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating > explanation of the Rambam. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel > against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand > why sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not > the main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a > safek, there is no need to do the act because it is not so important . R. Avraham pointed out that problem of the authority of the rabbis is a basic problem and not just a difficulty with a Rambam and Ramban. The better the source of their authority the more it looks like a de-oraisa. The more one goes away from a de-oraisa the weaker their authority. His major answer is that every time there is a dichotomy the only way out is to find a third middle path. In general this replaces a binary decision by a continuum path. His standard example is the definition of bald. Someone who has one hair is obviously bald. It is also obvious that adding one hair can't change someone from bald to not bald. The conclusion by induction is that every one is bald. The answer to the riddle that the dichotomy of bald not-bald is not correct. Adding one more hair makes someone less bald. It is a continuum and not a binary. R Avraham (RMA) brought the Nesivos that also (or more correctly first) states that there are two types of violating a derabbanan. One is to rebel against the concept of derabbanan and that is lo tasur according to the Rambam (he also hinted that in the next shiur the Ramban will agree with the Rambam). OTOH if one violates the rabbanan rule "le-teavon" then it is a strictly rabbinical rule. Hence, Nesivot concludes that if one one violates a rabbanan "be-shogeg" one does not need kaparah. In essence he has done nothing wrong. The lo-tasur is only for rebellion and he has not rebelled. Note that practically there can't be rebellion and safek. In modern terms the netivot says that all rabbanan decrees are gavra and not cheftza. Eating meat and milk (cooked together) the mixture is prohibited. Eating chicken and milk cooked together there is nothing wrong with the mixture. It is rebelling against the chachamim to eat it on purpose (lo tasur) or rabbinic if eaten le-teavon. RMA pointed out that this again comes back to the problem of why to listen to the rabbis Note that the Rogachover holds that every mitzvat aseh is only gavra and not cheftza A second explanation was from the Rogatchover: The prohibition from the Torah only demands that we accept the authority of the rabbis. If someone accepts that the rabbis can make decrees but decides that nevertheless he can't/won't listen then there is no Torah prohibition. This leaves open the question how is it possible that one can accept the authority of the rabbis but still disagree with them. It seems to bring back the original question of what good is their authority if one need not listen, To explain this RMA brought a Tzlach. The Nodah BeYehuda states that sevara yields a de-oraisa only if their is a connecting pasuk. Thus killing someone to save oneself is a deoraisa based on sevara (everyones blood is equal). However when sevara creates a new category then it is only derabbanan. The classic example is berachot - eating without a bracha is LIKE stealing. So the rabbis based on this sevara required berachot. However, it is only a derabbanan since one is not actually stealing. (answers a question of the Pnei Yehoshua). Similarly for something to be a Torah law there has to be both a commandment and a content. In order for something to be a de-oraisa it needs BOTH a source and content. So violating shabbat is one prohibition even though there are many pesukim since the content is the same. OTOH "lav she-be-chlalot" has only one pasuk but many contents and so also there is no punishment. According to Rambam anything no explicit in the Torah has no punishment when learned from derashot. So the prohibition of "Lo Tasur" gives a generalization that there is a commandment to listen to the rabbis. The rabbis applied to this to various cases but this is no longer explicit in the pasuk and so no longer a de-oraisa. This is different than "lifne iver" where giving bad advice is an example of the pasuk and so from the Torah. In summary there are 3 types of derashot 1) examples not explicit in the pasuk - clasical example is neder. The Torah says one can't violate one's neder. Hoever the individual person decides the specific application 2) Asmachta (some meforshim) - just a help to memory. Ritva argues that some asmachtot are really the intention of the pasuk. However since it is only hinted it is a rabbanan and not a deoraisa i.e. there is content but no commandment. 3) Things learned indirectly from the pasuk there is a sevara (content) but no commandment. Finally RMA argues that finding a third/middle path is the only way out and so Ramban has to agree with Rambam. The arguments are more misunderstandings and semantics. Another example is Avelut. Rambam states explicitly that ivisiting the avel or making the kallah happy rabbinic. He the quotes the pasuk of "ve-ahavta le-reacha komecha" . This eems to be self-contradictory. The answer is the same as for "Lo Tasur". There is content but no explicit commandment and so it is rabbinic even though hinted in the pasuk. Someone who "loves" (not romantic) the Kallah but doesnt make her happy fulfills the Torah obligation but not the rabbinic one. Someone who makes her happy but doent "love" her fulfils the rabbinic command but not the Torah obligation. RMA then hinted to a wider application to general philosophical questions where one has observations and generalizations. How is it possible to generate a physical law (eg Maxwell's equations) when all we have are a finite number of observations. In other words are mathematical descriptions of nature inherent in nature or man-made. De-raisa is like observations we only have what is explicit. Derabbanan are generalizations. In both cases we need to find a middle/continuum path Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 08:51:33 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (elazar teitz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:51:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 06/24/2016 02:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote: >> Wouldn't the lack of ma'aseh, even speech, mean there is no mechayev >> for a berakhah? > Then what does the mitzvah consist of, exactly? > In any case, what about shemias kol shofar? Or lishmoa` megilah, for > women according to the BeHaG? In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. EMT From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 09:11:14 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: <576D7813.3050705@sero.name> <20160624181857.GC19921@aishdas.org> <576D7A6C.8030807@sero.name> Message-ID: <576FFEA2.1070206@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 11:51 AM, elazar teitz wrote: > In the cases of megilla and shofar, hearing is required; a deaf > person is exempt, and one who is prevented from hearing because of > noise is not yotze. For birkas kohanim, according to the Sefer > Chareidim, I doubt that there is any requirement other than the > blessee's presence and awareness that the bracha is being given. Good distinction. Even awareness is presumably not necessary, since we bring babies to be blessed. But is this distinction really relevant to the question of whether to make a bracha? Where do we see that a bracha depends on a chiyuv to hear rather than merely to be present? Further question: is a bracha said on attending hakhel? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:13:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:13:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim Message-ID: Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: <<< According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? >>> As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the latter than the former. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 12:34:38 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:34:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and then continues on the cruise. We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many days -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:32:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:32:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57709038.8010307@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:34 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > A question arose in a shiur I attend about tefillat haderch for > someone on a cruise for several days. Does one say the tefilla every > day (with a bracha?) or only once at the start. Does it make a > difference if one goes off the ship into the port for a visit and > then continues on the cruise. > > We saw a Radvaz and Pri Chadash but they are talking about long trips > on land with staying somewhere along the way. Wasn't quite sure of > the connection to a cruise where one is one the same boat for many > days How much more so. If one says it (without shem umalchus) every morning of the journey, even at a hotel where one might be staying for a day or two to rest, how much more so must one say it (again without shem umalchus) every morning if one is actually travelling at that very moment. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jun 26 19:30:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:30:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Birchas Kohanim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57708FB9.2050601@sero.name> On 06/26/2016 03:13 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > Regarding the view that there is a mitzvah for a Yisrael to be > blessed by a kohen, R' Zev Sero asked: >> According to this opinion should we be saying a brachah? > As I understand it, one of the rules of Birkas Hamitzva is that one > does not say thea bracha when he is dependent on someone else. > Classic examples are giving tzedaka or giving terumah, because if the > recipient changes his mind and refuses, it will be a bracha l'vatala. > How much more so here, where I am not even offering something to the > kohen, but asking a favor *from* him. Our case is different, because once the cohen has answered the call and gone up to the duchan he can't change his mind. He's now obligated to bless. And if he hasn't done it yet that day then he has to do it anyway. > Similarly, I recently heard a similar rule, that we say the bracha > only if we will be doing the pe'ulah personally, such as by Hallel > and Sefirah. But we do not say the bracha ourselves if we are merely > being yotzay on the kiyum, such as by Shofar and Megilah. If there is > indeed a mitzvah to be blessed by the kohanim, it seems closer to the > latter than the former. But we *do* have an obligation to say a bracha, which we are yotzei by listening to the baal tokeia's or baal korei's; if he has already been yotzei himself then he does *not* say the bracha again, and one of the listeners says it for everyone. Here, however, we are not yotzei with the cohanim's bracha, since it doesn't apply to us; we are not sanctified with Aharon's kedusha, and we were not commanded to bless but (according to this opinion) to be blessed. So if we're not yotzei their bracha why don't we say our own (or have the chazan say it for us)? -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 02:10:17 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:10:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] tefillat haderech Message-ID: In my original post I was too short. Therefore I will expand a little about tefillat haderech and my question 1) Rashi holds that tefillat haderech (THD) is requesting permission from Hashem and so can only be said within the first parsah. Bahag holds that THD is asking for protection and so can be said anytime up to a parsah before the end of the trip. Rosh and SA pasken like Behag. Rambam doesn't mention THD and meforshim try and explain why 2) Ashkenazim measure parsah as a distance (about 4km) even when using a car or plane. ROY translated parsah to a time of 72 minutes. 3) Kolbo says that one says THD only once a day even if one made a stop during the day (quoted in SA). Hence, MB says that if one is touring and stops every night in a hotel one says THD every morning with a bracha. Yalkut Yosef says that if one travels 40 minutes going to work and 40 minutes back they don't combine and one says THS without a bracha 4) Radvaz talks about an extended trip and says that even if one is not stopping in a "yishuv" and if if one is travelling all night he says THD every day but a bracha only on the first day. Pri Chadash disagrees says that one says THD only on the first day even if it is an extended trip MB says that if one makes a short stop then one should say THD the next morning without a bracha 5) As an aside RSZA paskens that one does not say THD traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as there are cities all along the way. Yalkut Yosef disagrees. RSZA also says that on a plane one should say THD shortly after the plane leaves the ground My question concerned travelling on a boat either several day journey without stops across the Atlantic or else a cruise with many stops in ports. According to the Pri Chadash one certainly doesn't say THD after the first day. However, even according to the Radvaz one might argue that there is no need to say THD after the first day since one always stays on the boat day and night and it is different than a caravan. Of course one can always say THD without a bracha but the question is whether one needs to. I have no surveys but in my limited experience people do not say THD every day on a cruise even without a bracha -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 06:17:52 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:17:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] piskei halachot in monetary matters Message-ID: A new web site exists collecting piskei halachot in financial matters especially from eretz chemda courts in Israel currently 336 rulings with a search engine psakim.org -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 07:39:25 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Professor L. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:39:25 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Buying Sliced Watermelon Message-ID: <1467038393622.33144@stevens.edu> The following is from today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis. Q. I am preparing a picnic. Can I buy sliced watermelon from the supermarket? A. The Shach (YD 96:3) cites a concern that a knife often contains a fatty residue even after it has been washed or wiped with a rag. Therefore, if a non-kosher knife was used to cut kosher food, some of the residue on the knife would transfer to the food. Rama (96:1, 4) writes that with regards to fruit, we can assume that the manufacturer or processor has dedicated utensils. Even if the knife is not dedicated to cutting fruit, however, if large quantities of fruit are being cut or sliced, we can assume that whatever non-kosher residue was on the knife was removed when cutting the first few fruit, which are batel (nullified) in the majority of other fruit. One may, therefore, purchase cut watermelon in a supermarket or in a fruit store. The market would likely have dedicated utensils and in any event it is preparing large quantities of fruit. In a non-kosher restaurant or catered event, however, the fruit would not be permitted because the knives very likely are not dedicated and food preparation switches from one product to the next. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 13:55:42 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Henry Topas via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:55:42 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim Message-ID: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R' Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in "Ve ha-ish Moshe Anav m'od" from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Thanks, Henry Topas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jun 27 19:28:47 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Ketoret HaSammim In-Reply-To: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> References: <56c9a1906704433f923767e7b1c64bf7@CPMAIL.canpro.ca> Message-ID: <5771E0DF.8050101@sero.name> On 06/27/2016 04:55 PM, Henry Topas via Avodah wrote: > I am looking for a scan of the sefer Ketoret Hasammim written by R? > Mordechai Ben Natali Hirsch of Kremsier in 1671. > > In particular looking for his commentary on the word Anav in ?Ve > ha-ish Moshe Anav m?od? from the last Aliya of Parashat Behaalotcha. Here you go: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19165&pgnum=207 -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jun 28 03:03:53 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:03:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Is dirt clean? Message-ID: If a Jew wants to eat bread, halacha requires a certain form of hand-washing, but that has nothing to do with this thread. There are also certain situations where halacha recognizes a certain *spiritual* uncleanliness, and requires a certain hand-washing to remedy it. Most (all?) of these situations are listed in S"A O"C 4:18, and include things like getting up from bed, exiting a bathroom, removing one's shoes, and others. It is noteworthy that this se'if begins with the words "These things require washing with water", as if to suggest that washing with other things would not be effective. Indeed, the Mishne Brurah #39 comments on the word "with water": > However, for tefilah - and certainly for learning Torah - > a mere cleaning is enough for any of these cases, as > noted below in se'if 22, in the case of one who gets up > from bed. And this is certainly [acceptable] if there is > no [water available]. However, removing the Ruach Raah > requires specifically water. ... But this thread isn't about those situations either. I am mentioning it only in order to clearly establish that there is yet another category of situations, namely the ones that the MB pointed to as being in Se'if 22. The Mechaber wrote there (S"A O"C 4:22): > If one has no water, he should wipe his hands on a > pebble or dirt or anything that cleans, and say the > bracha 'Al Nekiyus Yadayim'. This [procedure] is > effective for tefilah, but not to remove the ruach > raah which is on [the hands]. The Mechaber's phrase "anything that cleans", and his wording for the bracha in such cases, not to mention his comment about ruach raah at the end -- All these things make it abundantly clear that we are talking about *physical* cleanliness, as opposed to other kinds of cleanliness. And the Mechaber writes similarly in O"C 92:4, that prior to Tefilah, > One must wash his hands with water if he has some, and > if he doesn't have any [the Mechaber explains how far > one must go to obtain water]. But if he is worried that > he will pass the time limit for Tefilah, then he should > clean his hands with a pebble or dirt or anything that > cleans. My question is simple: Why is dirt in the category of "things which clean"? It seems to me that if I would rub my hands with dirt they would (almost always) be even dirtier afterwards than before. The only answer I can think of is that halacha considers dirt to be clean. Is it possible that the *only* uncleanliness that prohibits tefila are the things listed in OC 4:21 - touching covered parts of one's body, etc. (and perhaps other specific listings elsewhere) Here's a practical situation. Suppose someone is at work, and it is close to Mincha time. So he goes to the bathroom, exits, and does the best washing you can imagine, with whatever chumros you like. Then he realizes he has a bit more time until mincha, so he decides to go back to work, but with constant attention to being very careful not to scratch his head, or touch under his shirt, or any of the things that would require him to wash again before mincha. But his job is a butcher, and he will get his hands bloody. Or he is a painter or printer, and he'll get paint or ink on his hands. Or he is a farmer or construction worker, and he'll get actual earth on his hands. And now it is time for mincha. Are his hands halachically clean or dirty? If you tell me that they are dirty, how does it help to wipe his hands in the dirt? I have more questions on this topic, but I hope this will get the ball rolling. Thank you. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:32:57 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rishon vs Acharon and other kelalei pesak Message-ID: <20160629193257.GA12798@aishdas.org> There are some interesting se'ifim toward the end of AhS YD 242 that touch on a number of our perennial topics. Se'ifin 58-62 discuss the din of whether a rav can pasqen on something that someone else already pasqened on, and if so, is a sho'el allowed to ask the second rav the self-same question. In 59 he opines (nir'eh LAD) that the Raavad, Ramban, Rashba, Rosh and Ran (AZ 7) all say the issue is not the kavod of the first talmid chakham, but because once he prohibits, chal alei chatichah de'isura [CACD]. Therefore, if the first TC made an error in a zil qeri bei rav matter, it's like someone who avoids a piece of shuman thinking it's cheilev, and there is no CACD. However, ther 2nd TC *may* say "I think it's allowed, but I will not permit something R' XYZ already prohibited." If a talmid chakham was matir and no one acted on it, another TC can be machmir. But if it was acted upon, he can't. I do not see an explanation why. Later we learn that a TC of an obviously higher caliber, or a moreh de'asra in his own town, can indeed overrule an earlier TC's ruling. Another interesting topic is 35 -- if acharonim disagree with a rishon whose opinion was available in their day, we follow the acharonim. If the rishon was not (eg Me'iri), we say that perhaps the acharonim would have ruledd differently had they seen it. But you cznnot rule against a ga'on. Yeish omerim you never hold like acharonim against rishonim, but yesh lehisyasheiv bazeh. However, if the rishon find one position compelling (yakhol lehachira) he may pasqen as he sees (except against geonim). 36: Just as it is assur to permit the prohibited, so too it is assur to prohibit the permitted. Even if there is no hefseid, or the item is owned by a non-Jew. However, safeiq and being chosheish for the opinoin of many rishonim is sufficient motive . According to the Shakh this is because "shelo ya'asu agudos agudos." In general the AhS refers to the Shakh's qunetrus on kelalei hapesaq a lot. Even though on a couple of things he holds like the Rama over the Shakh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Take time, micha at aishdas.org be exact, http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jun 29 12:46:24 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:46:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yanik Message-ID: <20160629194624.GA12037@aishdas.org> AhS YD 244 is about vehadarta penei zaqein -- both someone chronologically old (as long as he is not a rasha or an am ha'aretz who therefore ends up non-observant by ignorance), and a talmid chakham. In se'if 3 he says that a zaqein for the sake of this mitzvah would even include a TC who is a yaniq. Not a qatan. So what's a yaniq? Someone 17 or younger. Are there any mitzvos for which 17 yrs old is a significant age? The ony reference I could dream up is R' Elazar ben Azaria, who was 17, was supposed to be getting kavod (being nasi), and turned gray (keben shiv'im shanah) overnight. Problem is, he was 18 according to the Bavli; it's the Yerushalmi who has him becoming nasi at 16, and saying this quote at 17. And of cvourse the bigger problem is that there is no reason to turn the age REbA happened to be into a cutoff line. Can anyone think of something? 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 Thu Jun 30 02:10:30 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:10:30 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] meanings Message-ID: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or should you pick one? 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 Thu Jun 30 03:51:51 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:51:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma > before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities > with different meanings. (By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off or > should you pick one? Another example in Hallel: ze hayom `asa Hashem, nagila venismha bo (is "bo" hayom or Hashem? Most translations seem to go for "hayom", but "veyyismehu becha Yisrael" in the kedushat hayom of 18 for regalim fits with "bo" meaning Hashem) My humble opinion: for pesukim, if there are two possibilities it's not by chance, and mikra lo yotze mipeshuto -- including all its peshatim. For tefilla, I'm not so sure, but I think you should probably pick one. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:13:44 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:10:30AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : For the pasuk "Poteiach et yadecha" and for the placement of a comma : before or after "vishei Yisrael" in retzeih, there are two possibilities : with different meanings.( By poteiach-whose ratzon?) Can you switch off : or should you pick one? As per my answer to you at this week's wonderful Audio Roundup , I believe you *should* switch off. Poets make a point of layering on multiple meanings when they wish to convey a picture using al of them. I believe the point of ambiguity in tefillah is just so that you can emphasize different shades of meaning depending on what you want to way this particular time. (I accept tips for plugging a member's web site via Paypal. Contact me off-list. No, seriously, the biggest problem with RJR's Audio Roundup over on TM is that he tempts you with too many good shiurim for just one week of listening time.) There is a basic grammatical problem, two nouns, both the object of the sentence, with nothing indicating which is the primary object, which the secondary, nor anything connecting them into a single phrase that could be one object. Thanks to previous Avodah discussions, I have a list of ways to read "umasbia lekhol chai ratzon": - Pashut peshat [check your typical siddur translation] would be as though the pasuq read "umasbia' ritzon kol chai" -- leaving every desire satisfied. (Or maybe "umasbia lekhol chai es tetzono".) RYGB disliked this peshat because it's experimentally false. Many people die with unfulfilled desires. - Rav Schwab says that everyone is dependent on "yennem's" liking him for his parnassa.... Hashem provides this needed "ratzon". (RGD) RMPoppers suggests [on Mesorah] that "ratzon" was the very quality that HQBH is bequeathing, IIRC, something akin to granting "chein". - [T]he Malbim's pshat - Ratzon Hashem. (RYGB) [W]ould would work better if the pasuq read "... umasbia' lechol chei beratzon" .(me) - RAYK points out that without ratzon, goals and purposes for a person to persue, life is empty. So he too says that Hashem bestows ratzon -- but means it in the sense of having desire, not being desired/desirable. Hashem does us a tovah by giving us retzonos to pursue. Someone else noted the parallel in pereq 104:27-28 as an argument for what I called "pashut peshat": > Kulam alecha yesaberun / Eynai kol alecha yesabeiru > Lases ochlam b'ito / V'atah nosein lahem achlam b'ito > Titein lahem yilkotun. > Tiftach yadcha / Poseach es yadech > yisbe'un tov. / U'masbiya l'kol chay ratzon. > The whole string of preceding psukim in 104 refer to G-d's ability to > sustain the world in a very real and material way, not abstractions like > bestowing "razton". But I think that David haMelekh created the obscure phrasing because the real answer is "(E) All of the above". I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel beratzon..." works. When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase vehasheiv: - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, - ve'ishei Yisrael. Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to restore the BHMQ bfirst? Or do we pun on "ishei Yisrael" pretending it means "anshei Yisrael" but in a unique conjugation? But the question is how to find meaning in a pre-existing text under a new circumstance. Not multiuple layers of original intent. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember; micha at aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 11:44:26 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:44:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9CWhenever_you_find_yourself_on_the_sid?= =?utf-8?q?e_of_the_majority=2C_it_is_time_to_reform_=28or_pause_and_refle?= =?utf-8?b?Y3QpLuKAnSAg4oCVIE1hcmsgVHdhaW4=?= Message-ID: We all know the minority report by Joshua and Caleb showers its praises on the land and counsels b?nai Yisroel to go up to it. The ten other ?spies? give a very negative report against the land and can see only giants, fortified cities and difficulties they feel are insurmountable. These ten men of small stature conclude their report with the following: ?And there we saw the giants (nephilim), the sons of the giant (Anak), from among the giants; And we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes and so we were in their sight. (Bamidbar 13:33). The Midrash states that at these words, God said: ?I have no objection to your saying, ?We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes,? but it is inappropriate if you say, ?and so were were in their sight.? How do you know how you appeared to them? How do you know if you did not appear to them to be angels?? (Midrash Bamidar Rabbah, XVL, II). This is a profound psychological insight. How many times we feel insignificant and think everyone else looks at us the same. Just because you feel inferior doesn?t mean you are. That?s the meaning of ?You?re your own worst enemy." Shabbat shalom. ri From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jun 30 12:50:05 2016 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:50:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] meanings In-Reply-To: <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> References: <4645a6a0f3804343be43f8e3da81356a@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20160630181344.GC22005@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <577577ED.2090001@sero.name> On 06/30/2016 02:13 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I believe, though, that what happened with ve'ishei Yisrael is simpler. > Birkhas Avodah ("Retzeih") was originally written for the kohanim to > say in bayis sheini. (Tamid 5:1) > > In that original context, "Ve'ishei Yisrael usefilasam teqabel > beratzon..." works. > > When birkhas Avodah was modified to become art of Shemoneh Esrai in > a world without qorbanos, how do we salvage this line? Do we move the > period so that what we are folding it into the new phrase > vehasheiv: > - es a'avodah lidvir beisekha, > - ve'ishei Yisrael. > Or do we repurpose the old sentence to mean "And may you lovingly accept > the ishei yisrael and their tefillos" - which I know is asking you to > restore the BHMQ bfirst? I don't see the problem, or the "repurposing". The phrase means exactly what it always meant. The only change the bracha needed to adapt it to the new reality was the addition of a new request, to restore the avodah, before the request to accept our korbanos and tefillos. Once the new request is fulfilled, the next one won't be a problem. -- Zev Sero Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire zev at sero.name meaning merely by appending them to the two other words `God can'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God. -- C S Lewis